Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Right to Personal Privacy

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to protect the right to personal privacy as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): My right hon. Friend is keeping this important question under review, but is not satisfied that legislation is called for at present.

Mr. Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern which is felt about the use of a private agency by a London borough to expel squatters from premises? Is he also aware that many reputable people in business as private detectives would welcome some control?

Mr. Morgan: I think that my hon. Friend is perhaps referring to Question No. 3. I am aware that he succeeded on 30th April in obtaining a First Reading for his Bill, but the matters raised there were mainly for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the participation of members of the Metropolitan police in the Anguilla operation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): There are at present 86 police officers and two civilian technicians on Anguilla.

Sixty-nine police officers and one civilian have returned from Anguilla to duty with the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Marten: In view of the number of policemen in Anguilla, will the Home Secretary say how many people have been arrested for murder and arson, which were two reasons given by the Foreign Secretary for the invasion of Anguilla? Secondly, what progress is being made in training the Anguillan police force?

Mr. Callaghan: Questions of policy and the results of the operation are matters for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary; they do not come under my direct responsibility.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what chemical weapons were at the disposal of members of the Metropolitan Police Force in the Anguilla operation.

Mr. Callaghan: No such weapons are held by the Metropolitan Police contingent.

Private Detectives (Legislation)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to control the activities of private detectives.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My right hon. Friend does not think that he would be justified in doing so.

Mr. Gardner: May I apologise to my hon. Friend and ask the supplementary question which I intended to ask on Question No. 1? Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern on this matter which has been expressed in the many Private Members' Bills introduced by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Morgan: I would not deny that there are certain problems, but I do not concede that they are such as to demand the course which is pressed upon me by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister consult his noble friend the Lord Chancellor, who I know to be very interested in both these questions, and will he seriously consider whether, independently of the general right to privacy, bugging and industrial espionage should be separately dealt with?

Mr. Morgan: Industial espionage, in the sense of prying into industrial secrets, is a matter for the Board of trade and not for the Home Office.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Home Office and any other Department concerned with this matter resist the blandishments of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to deal piecemeal with the question of privacy, since the principles that underlie any particular aspect of intrusion into privacy relate also to every other intrusion into privacy? What is required is a general law of privacy, towards which the rest of the world is beginning to move while we are lagging behind.

Mr. Morgan: These questions range very much wider than Question No. 3, which deals with private detectives.

Commonwealth Citizens' Dependants (Entry Certificates)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the policy of making it mandatory for dependants of Commonwealth citizens to have entry certificates before being able to come to the United Kingdom; and what replies he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I have written to my hon. Friend about representations from the National Council of Civil Liberties, and similar replies have been sent to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the Yorkshire Committee for Community Relations. The few other communications received have been in support of the change.

Mr. Winnick: is my hon. Friend satisfied that under the new system genuine dependants of Commonwealth immigrants in Britain will have no more difficulty in coming to this country than before? Second, is it possible for the Select Committee on Race Relations to visit the countries concerned?

Mr. Rees: In general, the answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". The second part of the question is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Long-term Prisoners

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the problem of the long-term prisoner, with instructions to examine possible new methods and techniques of confining and employing such persons so that they do not degenerate physically and mentally.

Mr. Callaghan: The régime for longterm prisoners who require conditions of maximum security was the subject of a report made last year by the Advisory Council on the Penal System. I do not at present contemplate any further formal inquiry, but the treatment of long-term prisoners is under constant consideration by my Department.

Mr. Smith: Does the Home Secretary agree that, while it is essential that very serious offenders should be kept out of normal society for long periods, this must be done with reasonable humanity? As we are now faced with prisoners confined for 30 years or more, could not an inquiry be held to consider how, in some cases, a living death can be avoided?

Mr. Callaghan: While I agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman puts the general consideration, I do not accept the reference in the last part of his question to a living death. I do not think that a new committee would help. A very distinguished group of people is advising us constantly on these matters. If it will help the House, the questions that have been and are being considered, within the limits of the need for proper security and the degree of criminal sophistication of the prisoner, include such matters as work opportunities, association with other prisoners, education, including vocational training and physical education, the need to build up family ties, and home leave. All these are ways in which we can try to avoid the rather exaggerated conclusion reached by the hon. Gentleman.

British Intelligence Services (Organisation and Methods Analysis)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will invite a specialist firm experienced


in organisation and methods analysis to examine the efficiency of operation of those British intelligence services, details of whose activities are made public.

Mr. Callaghan: The expert advice of the management services of the Civil Service Department is available and I do not need to call in a specialist outside firm.

Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is time that the Secret Service became a little more secret? Would he not agree that the behaviour of Mr. Greville Wynne in announcing that he had been a spy all along may effectively have pulled the rug from under Mr. Gerald Brooke's protestations of innocence? Would he not agree that while we are about it we could stop the Departmental battle on leaks which, if this morning's Press is to be believed, appears to have taken place over the Krogers?

Mr. Callaghan: None of these matters would be helped very much by an investigation into organisation and methods, but I do not accept that the case of Gerald Brooke should be considered on anything but its merits, which are not related in any sense to those of a professional spy.

Mr. Marten: Does not the Question asked by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) show that he does not understand how the Secret Service works?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is claiming any greater knowledge. I was not aware that he had any. If he has, he should not have it.

Seized Postal Package

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why customs officials seized two books, Li Yu's Jon Pu Tuan and Amorous Drawings of the Marquis von Bayros, sent to Mr. Roy by the Evergreen Book Club; and why Mr. Roy was sent for by the police and threatened with prosecution, in view of the fact that he was the recipient of a parcel he had not ordered.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand that a package addressed to Mr. Roy was opened by Post Office officials in the course of normal Customs examination

of parcels from abroad. The books inside appeared to be prohibited from the post under Section 11(1,b) of the Post Office Act, 1953 and were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who asked the police to make inquiries, as a result of which he decided to take no further action.

Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend say what literary agency advises Customs officials, in view of the fact that these books are on sale all over London? Would it not help if the Customs officials were to publish a list of prohibited books so that people would not make mistakes of this sort?

Mr. Rees: The question of the performance of the Customs is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who doubtless will take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

Boundary Commissions (Recommendations)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to make the orders to put into effect the recommendations of each of the Boundaries Commissions, respectively.

Mr. Boston: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to take action on the Report of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission.

Mr. Callaghan: I will put my conclusions before the House later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, if I catch your eye.

Mr. Ridley: Since the Prime Minister has received a report that the implementation of the Boundary Commissions' proposals would benefit him electorally, why does he not run true to form and implement them straight away without further ado?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that in this matter the hon. Member's eye is constantly on party advantage. It should not be.

Murder Witnesses (Radio Appeals)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what request was made by the Metropolitan


Police to the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the broadcasting of radio appeals for murder witnesses.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Commissioner of Police has frequently made such requests. If the hon. Member's Question relates to a broadcast on 14th May, I would refer him to the reply I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 23rd May, 1969.—[Vol. 384, c. 155.]

Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that the B.B.C. censored the particular appeal required by the police to trace a murder witness solely on the ground that it contained reference to the fact that the suspect's car carried a sticker proclaiming "Dirty car—dirty weekend"? Would the Minister not agree that the censoring of such a vital and descriptive clue is an example of misplaced prudery by a corporation which is not usually over-sensitive to the broadcasting of suggestive materials?

Mr. Morgan: It is not for me to comment on prudery. It is for the B.B.C. in any instance to decide what material should be broadcast. I understand that in the event the witness was traced and found to be unconnected with the murder.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What is the Minister's general policy towards these requests? Will he clearly tell the B.B.C. that it is part of its national duty to assist the police in these matters?

Mr. Morgan: It would not be proper for me to say any more than that the Commissioner regrets that the words were omitted. However, the words were printed in the Press.

Firearms (Use Against Police)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the course of their duty were threatened with firearms, how many were shot at, how many wounded and how many killed by firearms in 1964 and in each subsequent year.

Mr. Callaghan: These statistics are fully available for England and Wales only for 1968, when there were 23 offences in which police officers were threatened

with firearms, and 12 in which police officers were shot at, including three in which they were injured.
In the years 1964–68 four police officers were murdered by shooting, one in 1965 and three in 1966.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Home Secretary agree that there has been a most regrettable increase in the number of cases where police have been shot at or threatened by firearms? Will he further agree that the increase has been most marked since criminals have ceased to be deterred from shooting their way out by fear of capital punishment?

Mr. Callaghan: I have no information to support the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question because no such statistics exist before 1968. I have given the hon. Member such inforniation as I have. It is true that the number of indictable offences involving firearms rose in 1967 and 1968; those resulting in physical injury fell. I do not believe that one can draw a parallel between this and the present absence of capital punishment.

Electrical Flexes (Colour Code)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to public funds of the publicity being given to the change of the colour code used in three-core electrical flexes.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: About £85,000. Considerable publicity is also being arranged by the Electricity Council and area boards, as well as by safety and trade organisations.

Mr. Goodhew: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that amount of expenditure is really necessary in view of the fact that the regulations require that explanatory labels should be fitted to all flexes on appliances sold in this country up to 1st January, 1977?

Mr. Rees: We still think that it is necessary to do this. In the first phase when the old type of flex will still be in use we shall be distributing five million leaflets, films and so on. In the second phase we shall be distributing 17 million colour code cards. We think that it is necessary to do so.

Fireworks (Control)

Mr. Michael Heseltine: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation for the control of fireworks.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The manufacture, conveyance and storage of fireworks are already subject to statutory control; the sale of fireworks to children apparently under the age of 13 is forbidden; and it is an offence to discharge fireworks in a street or public place. I am not convinced that there is a need at present for further legislation.

Mr. Heseltine: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that the figures do not bear out his Answer, that there is a growing number of accidents involving children, that in other countries controls are legislatively enforced, and that the only way in which to bring about a reduction in the number of accidents is for the Government to take action?

Mr. Rees: The number of severe injuries fell. I accept that the number of injuries overall increased last year for the first time. We have looked at the matter most carefully and consider that legislation itself is not the complete answer. I stick by the Answer I gave, that we are not convinced of the need for further legislation.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, despite what he has said, there might be a case to be made out for restricting the length of time during which fireworks may be on sale before 5th November? Is he aware that many elderly people are troubled by this matter for many weeks before that date? Perhaps the point could be considered.

Mr. Rees: I will look at the matter again. There is the problem of distribution and storage, but I will look at that precise point because I know that it worries many people.

Vehicle Tests (False Certificates)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many garages were prosecuted in 1968 for issuing the Ministry of Transport V.T. 20 test certificates for vehicles which were unsound.

Mr. Elysran Morgan: Provisional figures indicate that there were 88 prosecutions in England and Wales during 1968 for issuing false test certificates.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that these certificates can easily be bought at garages for quite small bribes? What further measures does he plan to bring in to safeguard, in particular, second-hand car buyers against this type of swindle?

Mr. Morgan: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. Any proposal for changing the criteria for the authorisation of the way in which these tests are to be carried out is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Child Care Officers

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has now had with the Association of Child Care Officers concerning their representations about local authorities which are reorganising social welfare services before the Government have announced their policy towards the Seebohm Report.

Mr. Callaghan: My right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I received a deputation on 7th May from this Association, the Standing Conference of Organisations of Social Workers, and the Seebohm Implementation Action Group.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply, can he say what action will be taken, and how soon, to alleviate the acute anxiety among members of this association?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; I appreciate that there is anxiety amongst the members of the association. My right hon. Friend and I have agreed, as we have stated repeatedly in this House, to ask local authorities not to contemplate changes in advance of the Government's decision in the matter, which clearly must now be taken in the light of the proposals made in the Redcliffe-Maud Report.

Police Publications

Mr. Buck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will


now arrange for the publication of the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for the year 1968, the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for the year 1968, and of the Criminal Statistics for England and Wales for 1968.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Commissioner's Report was published on 10th June, and I expect the other two to be published within the next few weeks.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he not agree that midsummer 1969 is a long time to have to wait for reports relating to 1968? In any event, will he guarantee that before we rise for the Summer Recess we shall have an opportunity to debate these very important reports?

Mr. Morgan: The second question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As for the first question, these are detailed figures and compilations, and they take a considerable time to put together.

Complaints Against Police (Investigations)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with present procedures for investigating complaints against the police, in the light of his review of the matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the recent concern at present methods of investigating public complaints against the police, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire, he will now set up an independent council to investigate public complaints against the police.

Mr. Callaghan: The Royal Commission on the Police, which reported in 1962, proposed the main features of the system for dealing with complaints which is embodied in the Police Act 1964. I keep the working of the procedures under review.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the large majority of complaints against the police are probably frivolous and ought not to be

brought? Does not he further agree that whereas in most, if not all, cases justice is done, the problem is that it should be seen to be done? What steps is he taking to reassure the public of this fact?

Mr. Callaghan: My experience is that justice is done in the great majority of cases, and I would not dissent from the way that the hon. Gentleman puts his point. I am sure that it is remembered by the public that a great many of these complaints come from malicious criminals who are ill-disposed and, because the police deal with these criminals, factors combine to make them an easy target. I note with interest the opinions expressed by the Chairman of the Police Federation the other day. I should be happy to discuss the matter with the Federation, because I want to see the two elements reconciled.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to so-called malicious complaints, there is a percentage of complaints which can be called trivial? Some people consider that the police show exemplary patience and do a good job under what often are trying circumstances.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I think that that is the general view. Nevertheless, the police themselves are conscious of the need for public opinion to be satisfied about these matters, and I would not despair of making such a proposal to them. On the other hand, I wish to emphasise if I can that my experience—and it is a personal one—is that in the great majority of cases the police act in an extremely tough way against any member of their service who is found to have acted improperly.

Firemen (Emergency Duty)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has decided to classify a fireman as being officially on emergency duty only when dealing with a conflagration.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Section 3(1)(e) of the Fire Services Act, 1947 empowers a fire authority to employ its brigade for purposes other than fire-fighting for which it appears to the authority to be suitable. If the hon. Member has in mind the question of entitlement to augmented pensions and gratuities for


widows in respect of the deaths of firemen, I would refer her to the reply I gave to the Questions by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 16th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 28–9.]

Mrs. Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that a recent ruling dictates that the job on which a fireman is engaged when he receives injuries from which he subsequently dies alters considerably the pension which his widow receives?

Mr. Rees: A change was made last year in an attempt to make firemen analogous with the police. It meant that the widow of a fireman who was not engaged in fire duties may not have received the higher rate of pension. We have considered that in the context of the procedures, and a change has now been made. I think that that is what I said previously.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome given to his right hon. Friend's decision to extend the provisions of the pension scheme of which he has just been speaking? Is it not another example of long overdue provisions being brought in by this Government which should have been brought in a long time ago?

Councillors, Garforth (Police Action)

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain a report from the Chief Constable on the circumstances under which police were authorised to evict elected councillors of the Garforth Urban District Council from their Council Chamber on 2nd June, 1969.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Two police officers attended a private meeting of the housing committee in chambers at the request of the clerk of the council. These officers, who went there solely to prevent any possible breach of the peace, were told that four councillors, who were not members of the committee, had stopped the business of the meeting proceeding by declining to leave when asked to do so by the chairman. The councillors concerned left the meeting at the invitation of the senior police officer.

Mr. Alison: Does the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend appreciate that the reason for which some of the Conservative councillors were sitting in at the meeting is that the majority party has disbarred any member of the opposition on the council from taking his place on any standing committee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Scandalous!"] As they represent over a third of the elected members of the council, does he not believe that it is obnoxious for the police to be prayed in aid for this sort of local petty tyranny?

Mr. Morgan: I cannot say whether the facts alleged by the hon. Gentleman are true. It is not for me to comment upon what Labour councillors might do in the circumstances or what Conservative councillors might do in similar circumstances. Where, in connection with a meeting on private premises, a constable has reasonable grounds to apprehend a possible breach of the peace, he is entitled to enter and remain on the premises.

Shoplifting (Penalties)

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average fine for the offence of shoplifting during the last convenient year and for previous years for which the figures are available; if he is satisfied that the penalties for shoplifting in England and Wales are a sufficient deterrent to offenders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: In each of the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 the average fine imposed by courts in England and Wales for stealing from shops and stalls was £9. The maximum fine on summary conviction of this offence is £400; there is no limit to the fine that may be imposed on conviction on indictment. In either case imprisonment may also tie ordered. The penalty imposed in any particular case is within the discretion of the court.

Mr. Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that convictions for larceny from shops have doubled in the years 1960 to 1967? Is he further aware of the grave concern of retailers about the loss occasioned thereby? Does not he think that an average fine of £9 when the maximum fine is £400 indicates that the


courts are treating the matter a little lightly?

Mr. Morgan: I am aware of the increase complained of by the hon. Gentleman, but the rate of increase for this offence is not disproportionate to the increase in crime generally. Within the maxima imposed by Statute, it is for the courts to decide, after considering all the facts of a case and the circumstances of the offender, what should be the right penalty to impose. It is not for the Executive to interfere in such a matter.

Prison Officers (Allegations of Brutality)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the report of the inquiry into the allegations of brutality of prison staff at Parkhurst.

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why he does not propose to take proceedings against prisoners at Parkhurst Prison who recently made allegations of brutality on the part of prison officers which inquiry failed to substantiate;
(2) if he will give an assurance that he will in future set up inquiries into the behaviour of prison officers only in cases where allegations have been made by prisoners through authorised channels.

Mr. Callaghan: I see no reason for departing from the normal practice not to publish the report of the inquiry by an officer of the Department. I consider that the incidents examined arose from the inherently difficult situation at Park-hurst Prison and the physical conditions there, and that it is not necessary to institute disciplinary proceedings against any prison officer or prisoner.
I must remain free to investigate allegations, even if they are not made through authorised channels, where I think this is necessary in the public interest or that of the prison service.

Mr. Davidson: As these prison officers have been cleared of very damaging allegations and as no charges have been made against any of the prisoners who gave evidence, who were warned that if they gave evidence they could be subject to disciplinary action, does my right

hon. Friend not think that it is in the interests both of the prisoners and of the prison officers that this report should be published so that the public can properly evaluate the evidence?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I do not think that that is the right way of handling it. This was an inquiry made by one of my officers. The report was made to me, and I considered the matter very carefully. I must ask the House to leave me some discretion, because my responsibility is the total welfare and well being of that prison and all who are there—both prisoners and prison officers. In all the circumstances, I believe that the best way of achieving a high standard of morale and good relations between the two is not to prefer charges and not to publicise the report.

Mr. Woodnutt: Does the Home Secretary agree that the worst way of trying to maintain morale is by setting up inquiries when complaints have not been made through the authorised channels? Does he not consider that it creates bad will among prison officers, as it has, just to act on a report in a Sunday newspaper based on a letter which has been smuggled out of prison?

Mr. Callaghan: I should, naturally, prefer all allegations to be made through the proper channels. But it is the job of a Minister to decide whether to ignore them because they are made through improper channels or to investigate them in the best interests of all concerned. This matter must be left to my judgment. It would have been regarded as pretty irresponsible if I totally ignored 120 signatures because they had not gone through the normal channels.

Illegal Immigrants (Brownsea Island Route)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain from the Chief Constable an estimate of the number of illegal immigrants who have entered this country by the Brownsea Island route.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The chief constable tells me that the only illegal landing known to have taken place in Dorset was that on 15th March, 1969, involving ten men, who have since been returned to India.

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C., in a stunt programme on 30th May, depicted the importation of an entire Indian family in broad daylight without let or hindrance? However irresponsible that programme may have been—and the Minister may care to comment on that—does it not reveal a disturbing state of affairs, and may I ask what action is being taken?

Mr. Rees: If the B.B.C. believes that the way to stop illegal entrants is to have, right the way along the south coast, a long range of policemen with glasses, as if an invasion is taking place, then it is even sillier than the silly stunt that it put on. When people are picked up on the Basingstoke bypass after a landing, it is not by luck. I think that the hon. Gentleman can leave the police to pursue the policy that they aready follow.

Toothpaste (Use of Chloroform)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations to prevent the use of chloroform in toothpaste made or sold in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I have received no criticism to suggest the need for this, but I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may wish to send me.

Mrs. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that toothpaste made in the United States to a formula containing three to five per cent. chloroform is sold without restriction in this country? If so, is not this a grave misuse of a toxic drug and does it not underline the need for some kind of regulation or more informative labelling of toilet preparations?

Mr. Morgan: The position, broadly, is that chloroform has been included in Part 1 of the Poisons List since its first promulgation in 1935. At present, substances containing less than one per cent. of chloroform, solid preparations and toothpaste, are specifically exempted from control. I know of three brands of toothpaste, which I will not name, containing chloroform, but I have no information to suggest that their use may have harmful effects.

Crown v. John Lovesay and Anthony Peterson (Witness)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the suppression by the Criminal Record Office of data concerning a prosecution witness in the case of Crown versus John Lovesay and Anthony Peterson, whose name has been sent to him.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the information was not suppressed. The convictions were in names other than that by which the witness was known at the time of the trial, and had not then been traced.

Mr. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House the serious discrepancies between the reply sent by Mr. Palmes of the Director of Public Prosecutions' Office on 10th February and that subsequently sent by Mr. F. A. Lance? The information given about the name of the witness was the same in both instances.

Mr. Morgan: My instructions are that there is no question whatsoever of suppression of records. The witness had come to the knowledge of the police under five separate names, and these differed from the name now used by that lady.

Approved Schools (Unconvicted Persons)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young girls and boys who have not committed any criminal offence are now in approved schools.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: On 30th April, 374 boys and 742 girls in England and Wales.
It is for the courts to decide whether an approved school order is the appropriate manner to determine a case.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever may be the law on the subject, the general public is shocked and horrified by the large number of young people who are sent to approved schools without any criminal charge being made against them? Will the Home Office


really apply its mind to the provision of some alternative method of dealing with this category of case and make sure that the parents or guardians of the young people concerned are told that legal aid is available, if required, and that the right of appeal is also available to them?

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend refers to alternative methods. He will be aware of the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Bill now before Parliament. A balance has to be maintained here between the right of the young person not to be put in such a place and the need to protect the young person from some very real perils in many of these cases.

Mrs. Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the new Bill will not necessarily mean that the same situation does not obtain? That being the case, does he agree that there is a case for seperating these youngsters who have committed no crime to prevent them from being contaminated by others who possibly have?

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure that the word "contaminated" is properly used. I have given undertakings during the proceedings on the Bill that there will be no admixture of various groups to the detriment of any of the young persons concerned.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

British Standard Time

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet completed his interim review of British Standard Time; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chichester Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about his interim assessment of the effects of British Standard Time.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. An interim assessment has been made based on a study of road accident figures—which I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT—and of the available statistics of accidents

in industry and agriculture during the past winter. The views volunteered by representative organisations have also been examined, together with correspondence from members of the public.
The difficulties which emerge were foreseen and taken into account during the passing of the British Standard Time Act, which envisages a review to be made after the experience of two winters.
The evidence available at this stage is not conclusive, although the fears expressed about road accidents have happily not been borne out.
The Government therefore propose to continue as intended with a comprehensive review of advantages and disadvantages based on the experience of two winters, and this review which will include a social survey will take place after the winter of 1969–70.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Home Secretary aware that that answer will cause despair throughout Scotland and, I suspect, in many parts of the North of England as well?
Following the humiliation that the right hon. Gentleman helped to impose upon the Prime Minister yesterday, he might at least now show some magnanimity if not to the Prime Minister, at any rate to the people of Scotland, by thinking again and taking this miserable Act off the Statute Book without imposing another winter of B.S.T. upon them.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not wish to wait for the comprehensive review which Parliament agreed should be undertaken at the end of two winters.
The hon. Gentleman is so prone to exaggerated language that he really spoils his own case. There is a balance of advantage and disadvantage here. This should be properly assessed; Parliament decided that it should be done at the end of the two years, and this is what I propose to continue to do.

Mr. William Hamilton: In order to take the emotional heat out of the question, will my right hon. Friend undertake to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the accident statistics which he mentioned, and, if possible, to separate the English figures from the Scottish ones?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not sure whether I can separate them, but they show that the exaggerated fears expressed by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), and by many others, are not borne out. I am delighted to say that there were fewer accidents than in the corresponding period the year before in the relevant hours of darkness. I do not wish to place too much weight on this because it is only one winter and the figures vary a great deal, but it exposes the case against exaggeration in this matter.

Mrs. Ewing: Was the review limited to statistics of accidents on the roads and in industry, or did it take into account the attitude of citizens? If it did not, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having such a review before he finally makes up his mind?

Mr. Callaghan: I assure the hon. Lady that I have an analysis made of letters I receive from the public as well as from organisations which wish to put views to me. When the social survey is made after next winter it will be on a completely comprehensive basis, and I hope that we shall be able to get a very full picture about the way in which people look at this situation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Whitaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the supplementary question, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the information:


ROAD ACCIDENT FIGURES


Increase or Decrease in 1968–69 over corresponding month in 1967–68



Nov.
Dec.
Jan.


All accidents
+679
+266
+1,248


Accidents during relevant hours*
-51
-137
+152


All accidents involving children
+53
-16
+175


Accidents involving children during relevant hourst†
+17
-17
+96


* i.e. 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., all days of the week.


† i.e. 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Mondays to Fridays only.

Experiments on Living Animals

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate and make recommendations on the use of animals for experiments, at a time when the animals are still alive.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only the anti-vivisectionist lobby that is worried about laboratory experiments? Is it not time that some kind of code of conduct was established?

Mr. Rees: As soon as legislative time can be found we shall implement the Littlewood Committee's Report.

Police, Portsmouth (Accommodation)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the shortage of accommodation for constables of the Hampshire police authority living in Portsmouth, he will give approval to expenditure on additional accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Elysian Morgan: The police housing programme is primarily a matter for the Hampshire police authority; my right hon. Friend has agreed to the authority's proposals for housing expenditure in the current year. I am not aware of any special difficulty at Portsmouth.

Mr. Judd: Is my hon. Friend aware that public attention has been drawn to this due to a recent statement by the chief constable that there is concern about the impact on morale and a possible impact on recruiting due to the shortage of housing, and will he contemplate taking special action in this respect?

Mr. Morgan: The police authority has put forward a scheme whereby loans can be made to police officers who wish to become owner-occupiers. This scheme makes special arrangements to cover the difficulties which arise when a police officer has to transfer to another part of the force area.

Armed Assaults (Metropolitan Police Area)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to deal with the increased number of armed assaults in the Metropolitan police area, which were 31 per cent. more in 1968 than in 1967.

Mr. Callaghan: The Commissioner informs me that the investigation and clearing up of cases involving these serious offences is receiving the particular attention of the Flying Squad and of the regional crime squads. I take this opportunity of reminding the House that Parliament has given the courts powers to impose heavy penalties for such crimes.

Mr. Lipton: That may be so, but will my right hon. Friend do what he can—I know it is very limited—to ensure that when these cases come before the courts very heavy penalties are imposed, and, second, that some further tightening-up is carried out with regard to the sale of weapons generally?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think I can comment on the practice of the courts in imposing penalties, but as regards the use and possession of firearms there has been a substantial tightening-up in recent years, including the Firearms Act of 1965, the Criminal Justice Act of 1967, and the Firearms Act of 1968, but they are, alas, still easy to come by.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the increase in the number of armed assaults with intent to rob, and armed robberies, in the metropolitan area particularly disappointing in the light of the fact that Parliament has given the Government this increased power to control the use of firearms? Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any explanation for these deteriorating figures?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that we must be careful about reading too much into one year's figures. If, for example, we consider the number of offences of robbery and assault with intent to rob, we see that between 1967 and 1968 these decreased by a little over 5 per cent. I think that we must have a run of these figures and put them together.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial television broadcast to the nation on the problems of industrial relations.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to make further television broadcasts on Government policy.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that the Trades Union Congress and the national trades unions are not reflecting the views of their members on the Government's policies regarding industrial disputes; and whether he will take whatever action may be necessary to meet and address the rank and file trades unionists and to seek their views on the Government's policy regarding industrial disputes;
(2) whether he is aware that, during his recent series of discussions with representatives of the Trades Union Congress, before such discussions have taken place and before he has made official statements of the Government's policy, details of Her Majesty's Government's proposals have been recorded in the Press and on the radio and television, which have been subsequently confirmed by official Government announcements; and whether he will order an investigation into these premature disclosures of information.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I will, with permission, answer these Questions at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANAGEMENT OF THE ECONOMY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the present arrangements relating to Ministerial responsibility for the management of the economy, in the light of the current balance of payments; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: As much of the improvement in last month's figures came from the magnificent contribution made to invisible exports by financial institutions, would not it be appropriate for consideration to be given now to relieving them of some of the massive burdens of S.E.T.?

The Prime Minister: They seem to be doing very well, as a number of Ministers have said. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave some figures in his speech last Friday which I am sure will bring as much sense of encouragement to the Opposition, despite their silence, as it does to everybody else in the country.

Mr. Maudling: Is it the Prime Minister's case that the more industry contributes to the balance of payments the more it should be taxed for doing so?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Considering the forecast made by the right hon. Gentleman about the fact that invisible earnings would be fatally crippled by this tax, I am sure he will rejoice to see how wrong he was.

Mr. Cant: Accepting that policies are more important than the organisation of Ministries, and that according to the City Press Government policies are working out, and even though the latest opinion polls show that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is two points ahead of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), may I ask my right hon. Friend not to be panicked into adopting the same policies based on market forces such as gliding parities and crawling pegs?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is too well-informed on these matters to base any question on a single month's figures, but I have not noticed any noise corresponding to what we have just heard on the other side of the House in appreciation of the fact that the deficit on current account—these are published figures—in the first quarter has been reduced to £20 million. As my right hon. Friend said, it is clear that the country is now paying its way. I am surprised—or perhaps not so surprised—that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so quick to make capital out of a month's

figures if they are the other way, have not expressed their appreciation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND INCOMES

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minisster if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for phasing out the statutory control of prices and incomes.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: As the Prime Minister is now capitulating to the T.U.C. all round, will he go the whole hog and abolish the Prices and Incomes Board, along with the policy?

The Prime Minister: On the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question, there will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss that at the end of Questions. If the hon. Gentleman regards it as capitulation to end these special powers in the Prices and Incomes Act, I wonder why he voted against that Act throughout.

Mr. David Howell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall describing the introduction of the prices and incomes policy as a "categorical imperative"? Now that another categorical imperative seems to have become less imperative, does he now propose reintroducing this categorical imperative?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Prices and Incomes Act has done extremely valuable work, as my right hon. Friend has said, despite the opposition of hon. Members who tried to make it as unworkable as possible throughout. With regard to the second part of that question, I shall deal with it at the end of Questions.

Mr. Pavitt: In spite of the obvious difficulties in an inflationary situation of holding prices, would my right hon. Friend give more publicity to the several cases in which this procedure has kept down prices, notably hearing aid batteries, the price of which was reduced by 25 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he has lost no opportunity, because of his interest and concern in these matters, of making that clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMME

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will co-ordinate action by Ministers to launch an antipoverty programme in Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together in this matter. Under the social services programme substantial improvements have been made in the level and extent of aid to relieve poverty and the Government's urban programme has made supplementary provision for areas of special social need.

Mr. Whitaker: But in view of the fact that the disparities between the rich and the poor in this country have not closed over the last 18 years, would the Government not launch an intensive attack on poverty? Is it not a reflection on us that, in this respect, America has been a good deal more radical than we have?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the interesting Fabian research pamphlet produced by my hon. Friend on this question. I do not think that anyone would accept the conclusion which he has just made. He will be well aware of the continuing action taken, for example, on retirement benefits, on earnings-related supplements, on widows' pensions, on supplementary benefits, on family allowance increases to deal with the special problem of poverty for large families, and, of course, on various other forms of assistance, such as rate rebates.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS AND DEPARTMENTS (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increasing delays in obtaining replies from Ministers and Departments; and what action he is proposing for correcting this.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not aware of any evidence of increasing delays, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I should be grateful if he would write to me, so that I can look into it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Now that the Prime Minister has plenty of extra time

in the next few weeks, will he start by consulting the Treasury and looking at the remarks of the Inland Revenue Staff Association about the overloading of that Department by recent legislation?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly look at this. Of course, any suggestion by hon. Members in terms of delays in obtaining replies raises the question of more staff. I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were against increasing the size of the Civil Service.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Too much legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNION OF IRELAND

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the new Prime Ministers of Eire and Northern Ireland to confer with him in London to co-ordinate policy for achieving union for the whole of Ireland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that these two new Prime Ministers have introduced new ideas and given an opportunity for toleration and unity in the whole of Ireland, will my right hon. Friend not invite them both here, so that the three heads could be put together to the benefit of Ireland?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear questions.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. Are you not allowing the Prime Minister to answer my question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I am protecting the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Prime Minister: I heard what my hon. and learned Friend said, Mr. Speaker. He will be aware that I recently had a visit on which I reported to the House, from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and we had an extremely satisfactory discussion. I had arranged to have a visit from the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, but because of their election this did not become possible. Naturally, I hope to see the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic as soon as possible, but arrangements for the two of them to meet have been satisfactory in the past, alternately in


Dublin or Belfast, and I do not think that I need to add anything to them.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the people of Ulster have no intention of being separated from the United Kingdom under the Crown and do not intend to be taken over by the Republic of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has probably heard me and other of my right hon. Friends say often enough in all the difficulties about Northern Ireland, that the question of the Border was not in issue in any of our discussions or any of the statements which we or anyone else have made about it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Then say so.

Mr. Richard: In view of the terms of the last supplementary question, would my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), and, indeed, of the Government whom he appears to represent in this House, to the report of Justice, published this morning, which shows that the part of the United Kingdom which he represents is, in the opinion of that undoubtedly objective organisation, deficient in basic human rights?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen this document, but certainly the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), alone among Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament, refused to sign a Motion on the Order Paper when all his colleagues wanted to see these matters improved.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Northern Ireland Prime Minister has said that a number of parts of the Justice report are totally inaccurate? If the right hon. Gentleman cares to examine that report and look at the evidence, he will see that this is so.

The Prime Minister: I should be happy to see the document referred to by my hon. Friend and also the statement referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I have reported to the House on my last discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and I thought that it was an encouraging report, about what

he and his colleagues could say about the steps which they were taking in response to the pressure which we have put on them, with the support of hon. Members in almost all parts of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. ANTHONY GREY

Mr. Hooson: asked the Prime Minister if he will now intensify diplomatic pressure to gain the release of Mr. Anthony Grey from Peking; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Repeated representations have been made to the Chinese both here and in Peking asking for Mr. Grey's early release and immediate consular access to him; the most recent occasion being on 19th May when the acting Chinese Chargé d'Affaires was summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and asked to convey to his Government the very great importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to his early release. We shall continue to press the Chinese urgently for a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern thoroughout the country that the fate and ordeal of this young man should not appear to be forgotten for one moment, and that there is great hope that the Government will be able to intensify the campaign to bring pressure on the Chinese to release him? Is there any glimmer of hope in the recent exchanges that this young man's ordeal may be ended?

The Prime Minister: I entirely share what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the concern all over the country about the intolerable treatment of Mr. Grey: it is a concern fully shared by Her Majesty's Government and every-once else in the House. I would not like to raise the hopes of the hon. and learned Gentleman by responding to the latter part of his question. In all these matters, I am sure that the House will agree that it is better that as little as possible should be said. Although I was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition last week for raising the question of the nurse who had been seized in Nigeria, I felt it better then not to say more than I did—and the House saw the outcome a day or two later.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, as long as the Government of Hong Kong puts Chinese citizens in prison and holds them in detention without trial, the tragedy of Anthony Grey and many others in China could well be repeated?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am afraid that the cases referred to by my hon. Friend are not in any sense on all fours with the treatment of Mr. Grey. Indeed, when there have been complaints from the Chinese Government, they have been about persons who have been found guilty by the courts of actions contrary to law and order, which I think would have been the subject of charges in any country. I do not think that it is right to put these on a parallel with the treatment of Mr. Grey.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: When the right hon. Gentleman asks the Chinese Government about Mr. Grey, will he please also make equally strong representations about the many other British residents illegally detained in China?

The Prime Minister: That is a very fair point. My right hon. Friend has done that.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have been working and pressurising for the release of all British subjects detained in China hope that there will be equally vociferous pressure from the Opposition on behalf of the two British subjects detained without trial in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: That is a very fair point, but, I think, a different question from that on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hastings: When may we expect a statement on negotiations for the release of Gerald Brooke? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of apprehension that the Government may be weakening over the question of exchange for the Krogers, and that this could have the most serious consequences?

The Prime Minister: If I were wrong in saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) that developments in South Africa were a different question from that on the Order Paper, I could certainly say that the

hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is similarly different.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Krogers are now getting very old; and would it not be better if the British taxpayer ceased to pay for their upkeep?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer any question except the Question on the Order Paper, which is about Mr. Grey. I know that the whole House is anxious about Mr. Grey, as it is about Mr. Brooke, but it would not help if, in trying to answer, I were to link the reply to one Question with the answer to another.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q1, 05, Q8 and Q10 together.
Further to my interim report to the House in answer to Questions on Tuesday, together with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State I again met the General Council of the T.U.C. yesterday.
The House will recall that in the previous discussions the First Secretary and I made clear that the Government would not proceed with their proposals for legislation on industrial relations in this Session of Parliament if the T.U.C. took steps which the Government regarded as equally effective—[Laughter.] This is what I said on Tuesday; I did not hear a snigger then—and that while the Government accepted the proposals adopted by the T.U.C. Special Congress on 5th June as satisfactory in relation to inter-union disputes, they had doubts about certain aspects of the proposals for dealing with unconstitutional strikes.
In the course of yesterday's discussions the General Council unanimously agreed to a solemn and binding undertaking which set out the lines on which the General Council will intervene in serious unconstitutional stoppages. In the light of this undertaking, the Government now regard the T.U.C.'s proposals as satisfactory. A copy of the undertaking has been placed in the Library, and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In these circumstances, the Government have decided not to proceed with proposals for legislation involving financial penalties for those involved in inter-union and unconstitutional disputes. An interim Industrial Relations Bill will not, therefore, be introduced this Session. Consultations about the legislation to be introduced in the next Session of Parliament will continue with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.
In answer to Questions Nos. Q1 and Q5, I shall be making a Ministerial television broadcast on these matters tonight.
In answer to Question No. Q8, I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that between us my right hon. Friend and I have attended several trade union conferences in recent months, and have been in close touch with trade union opinion.
In answer to Question No. Q10, I am not aware of any evidence of unauthorised disclosure of official information.

Mr. Heath: What will happen should unofficial strikers ignore the trade union leaders, and go on striking?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that that is all the right hon. Gentleman could manage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If that is the sum total of 13 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps I can enlighten him.
The T.U.C. has given us this binding declaration. On Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason his Government did not even introduce a Royal Commission was that they were negotiating with the T.U.C. They negotiated with the T.U.C. for 13 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Indeed, I will. We have negotiated with the T.U.C. for two months.
In the declaration, which I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have read, he will see that in cases where the T.U.C. believes that strikers are unconstitutional and wrong in remaining on strike, it will place an obligation on the union or unions concerned to get them back to work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to answer the question—[Interruption.] In cases where the unions flout the instruction of the T.U.C., action will be taken under Rule 13. This is what has come out of two

months' negotiations—[Laughter.] I am surprised that right hon. Gentlemen, who secured nothing out of their negotiations—[Interruption.]—who refused to take action because they said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard reasonably.

The Prime Minister: I am quoting their words. They refused to take action because they said that it was a matter for the T.U.C. We have now got the. T.U.C. to act while they did not.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister now answer my specific question: what will happen when unofficial strikers ignore the advice of their union leaders, and go on striking? This was the crux of the matter, and the reason for the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State putting forward proposals for imposing a conciliation pause, with sanctions to enforce it against unofficial strikers.
The Prime Minister says that he must have something effective in its place. What will happen when unofficial strikers ignore the union leaders, and go on striking?

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When will the hon. Gentlemen be called who put down the Questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be patient.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has the answer I have given. In the cases I have mentioned, the T.U C. will place an obligation on the unions concerned to get their members back to work. It will then be the duty of the unions concerned to do this, including, where appropriate, the use of their rule books—[Laughter.] I have heard enough—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have reasonable order.

The Prime Minister: I have heard enough from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the power of union rule books—they have complained only too often about them in the past.
In this case there is an obligation, where it is needed, to use the rule book,


including fines, suspensions and expulsion—which is a very serious punishment in a closed shop industry—where this is not carried out and the unions are not taking effective action. I have told the House what the T.U.C. powers are in respect of individual unions. This is in marked contrast to the literally nothing the party opposite did during 13 years of power.

Mr. Marten: rose—

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These answers are in reply to questions put on the Order Paper. While I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition has a unique position in the House, to which I bow, in the matter of Questions, it is a fact that Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown even ruled against Sir Winston Churchill and said that he must not muscle in to exclude the original questioner. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown then called the original questioner. I should be glad, with all due deference to the undoubted rights of the Leader of the Opposition, to know whether that is still the position of back benchers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some substance in the historical recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in the history of Parliament. If he reads the incident very carefully, he will, however, find that the circumstances were altogether different. Mr. Marten.

Mr. Marten: If the T.U.C. fails to discipline unconstitutional strikes in the months ahead, will the right hon. Gentleman then introduce a Bill with penal sanctions? Does this agreement need to be ratified by the Trades Union Congress in the autumn? If so, will it not be operative until then?

The Prime Minister: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is hypothetical. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not aware of that. It was a fair question, but the mirth that greeted it makes me wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite really are refusing to take on trust a solemn obligation made by men with whom they dealt when they were in office, whom they trusted and who, after 12 years, they told should be handling this question of unofficial

strikes. It is, therefore, a hypothetical question. I accept not only the sincerity but the determination of the General Council of the T.U.C. when it makes a declaration of this kind, which is unanimous.
The hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting, in the second part of his supplementary question—this is a binding declaration; it is as binding as the Bridlington declaration which played such an important part in trade union history—that it requires to be approved by the Trades Union Congress. However, the General Council said yesterday, in relation to this and to the rule changes that it proposed at Croydon, that it will proceed to act within the spirit of them, even without waiting for Congress to pass the necessary legislation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since Mr. Victor Feather and not the Prime Minister now seems to be in charge of issuing dog licences, would it not be better for the Prime Minister to make his broadcast not from No. 10 Downing Street but from T.U.C. headquarters?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman is now having to get even his jokes as well as his opinions from the Tory Press this morning. To answer what he no doubt thought was the serious part of his supplementary question, I have said today and yesterday and we said it two months ago, both in this House and elsewhere—

Sir Knox Cunningham: What about last week?

The Prime Minister: —and last week as well, that if the T.U.C. was able to produce something effective and was determined about its use, not only in relation to unofficial strikes but in inter-union disputes, we would accept it as a substitute for ours.
That is what we have done and the hon. Gentleman, who used to write his own Prime Minister's speeches for him, should remember that at the time when he was writing them it was official Conservative policy to leave unofficial strikes to the T.U.C.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. What the Prime Minister has just said and what he has frequently said is a lie and he should retract it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "lie".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but you have placed me in a difficulty.

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is equally sorry, but the Chair must protect the rules of the House and the conduct in it. It is not in order for one hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of uttering a lie. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "lie".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I quite deliberately used the word—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which I knew to be outside the normal rules of the House. I did so because I felt it right to draw attention—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the last time, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "lie".

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In response to your request, and yours alone, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "lie"—and replace it with the phrase a terminological inexactitude in respect of something which the Prime Minister knew to be untrue.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the word.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that, unfoundedly, some hon. Gentlemen opposite are casting doubt on the ability and veracity of the T.U.C.? Would my right hon. Friend agree that we should pay tribute to Victor Feather who, during these discussions, has proved the ability of the T.U.C.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in that within a few hours of being asked by the Prime Minister so to do, the T.U.C. resolved the unofficial strike at the Pressed Steel factory?
Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will now cheer that, as they cheered my

earlier remark, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will pay tribute to the T.U.C. for the excellent work that it did in connection with that strike.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly did what he asks on that occasion. A matter which has not received much attention is the valuable demarcation agreement which has been concluded in the shipyards and which should make possible the end of the large number of strikes that have bedevilled that industry in the past generation.
As for hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am sure that when they have got over their little fit of instant opposition, to which we have become so used, they, too, will wish to pay tribute to the fact that the T.U.C. has really moved further forward in all these matters in the past two or three months than in the past 40 years. I do not think that even hon. Gentlemen opposite will grudge that tribute to the T.U.C. and that they will also recognise that this would not have happened but for our White Paper and the negotiations. I believe that they may one day pay tribute to that, too.
And considering their 13 years of negotiations with the T.U.C., I would now like one of them, perhaps one of their ex-Ministers of Labour, to tell us what was achieved during those 13 years of negotiation, apart from a lot of No. 10 talks about sherry and unemployment at Stockton-on-Tees.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in view of the Government's achievements in persuading the T.U.C. to act, the Opposition's hostility is predictable and understandable? Is he further aware that many of us would like to see the Government exercising similar persuasion on the employers to induce them to co-operate in the fundamental task of improving the collective bargaining machinery and changing industrial attitudes, a matter which is vital to the future of Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the predictability of the Opposition in this matter. I could understand their attitude if they had supported the White Paper, but they did not. They abstained in the White Paper debate. In


connection with the Bill which we said would follow the White Paper, they made it very clear that they would do everything possible to hold up debate on it.

Mr. Mawby: Is the Prime Minister aware that congratulations are due to him for the greatest confidence trick of the century? [Interruption.] Is he also aware that this probably explains the attitude of the Opposition to his White Paper? As he explained to the Parliamentary Labour Party that the Bill to which he referred was essential for the Government to remain in office, will he now do what he should have done months ago—go to the country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who, I think, claims to be one of that extraordinary group known as Tory trade unionists, has enough experience of industry and of his own union as well as of the T.U.C. to know how inaccurate is his judgment of this matter. As a loyal trade unionist, for such I understand him to be, he will, I am sure, understand what it has meant that the T.U.C. has been able to make this declaration.
As for the quotation he made from a speech which I made in a Committee Room upstairs on, I think, 17th April, I noticed that he did not quote the other relevant part of that speech.

Mr. Atkinson: During the last two months the idea that workers could be exposed to prosecution by their employers in the event of a dispute was thoroughly rejected by the Government's advisers, by the D.E.P. and by the T.U.C. Would my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the proposals contained in the document "Fair Deal at Work" are now thoroughly rejected by every authority in Britain, and that the whole of the advice tendered to the Government means that those proposals made by the party opposite are now a non-starter?

The Prime Minister: They certainly always were a non-starter. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me, by way of question and answer, to attempt to comment adequately on the total irrelevance of the Opposition's proposals. I would prefer to invite the Leader of the Opposition to use his next Supply day to let us have a debate on

these matters, when we can exchange our courtesies across the Floor of the House.
After all, last November the right hon. Gentleman called for an urgent Bill before Christmas. I am sure, therefore, that he would not grudge us one of his Supply days to debate this subject. We can then compare his record at the Ministry of Labour and the Tory record generally with what we have achieved in these past few months.

Dr. Winstanley: May I welcome the fact that even if the Prime Minister has not diagnosed the complaint, he has at least stopped prescribing the wrong medicine? Are we not misleading ourselves in describing the T.U.C. undertaking as binding and in assuming that the trade unions, as at present constituted and without reform, will be able to accomplish this task? Do not we now need positive legislation to attack the causes of industrial unrest and implement the more constructive parts of the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I would not attempt to compete with the hon. Gentleman about medicine and prescribing. What we put forward in our White Paper was, in our view, the only means of dealing with this matter by Government action in a situation where industry was not prepared to make the necessary changes for us to be able to entrust it with, at any rate, part of the task.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman—and this is a central theme of the White Paper—that in addition to action to deal with unconstitutional strikers we must get at the basic causes of strikes, grievances, negotiating procedures, agreements, and so on. That is why we have set up the C.I.R.; and that inspired a large section of "Programme for Action". He is right to draw attention to that, but this alone will not deal with the urgent problem we face.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many hon. Members with experience of these matters are glad that the Government have abandoned the penal clauses, for our experience shows that they do not promote industrial harmony but industrial strife? Is he further aware that many of us with years of experience in the trade unions wholeheartedly welcome the steps which have been taken by the


T.U.C., in agreement with the Government, remembering that industrial peace is not possible against hostility from the T.U.C.?
May I, therefore, tell my right hon. Friend that it is now our duty to give every possible help to the T.U.C. in this matter; and, on a personal note, may I express my appreciation, as one who has known him for many years, for the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made and that have been made, also, by Mr. Victor Feather?

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend. His long experience in industry on the trade union side as a national leader in this matter will, I hope, put to shame some of the sniggers and giggles from hon. Members opposite who are not capable of appreciating the importance of this step forward by the T.U.C. even though when they were in office they said that the T.U.C. must do the job themselves. That I find difficult to understand.
No one wanted to propose penal clauses. On the other hand, I do not think that anyone underrated the importance of the problem we had to deal with. That is why the Government were not, and would not have been, afraid to carry legislation on this despite the fact that hon. Members opposite would not have had the guts to support us. We were prepared to do that, but always we said that if the T.U.C. would propose an effective solution we would adopt it, and we have done so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Reverting to my right hon. Friend's two unanswered questions about the handling of unofficial strikes, which up to yesterday right hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking with desperate seriousness, may we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that as a result of this transaction beneficial results will appear in weeks rather than months?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that even for the right hon. Gentleman these matters are too important in industrial relations for remarks of that kind, particularly since he seems entirely to have failed to see that already we have had some substantial results, as pointed out by my hon. Friends, in ending one or two serious strikes as a result

of the powers given by the Croydon conference to the T.U.C. The right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my answer, but, of course, he is a lawyer—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Withdraw.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is a word one has to withdraw.
The right hon. Gentleman will be able to understand how totally irrelevant to the problems are the solutions which leave the whole matter in the arid atmosphere of a court decision when dealing with the basic problems of strikes, which is, of course, what we set out to do in our White Paper. That is why, when he asks, "What will you do with unions who do not ensure that strikers go back to work?", this is the question which we have to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that, despite the profound disappointment of the Opposition at the outcome of the Government's discussions with the trade unions, they have not yet requested a debate on this important and fundamental topic? Would it not be desirable that there should be an early debate to enable the Opposition to express in rational terms their opinion of the trade union movement, particularly the T.U.C., and also to indicate to the House and the country what would happen to the trade union movement and the workers if, by any mischance, members of the Opposition ever became the Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend did not quite get the point I made about a debate. It is not a question of the Opposition having to request it, for they have a Supply day open to them next week and they can take it.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Opposition have no Supply day next week? [Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister aware that in any case the House will have ample opportunity to debate the Government's conduct in this matter on Wednesday, when there is to be a debate on the Letter of Intent, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a solemn undertaking that we would have industrial legislation of this kind as a result of abandoning


the compulsory prices and incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: I accept, of course, what the Chief Whip said and I have confirmed that there is no Supply day next week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have done so; I have accepted that, but I still believe that after last November, when the Opposition demanded an immediate Bill, they might have taken one Supply day. We shall be glad to give them a day at the earliest opportunity if they will take it. I do not know whether this is what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but he was quite wrong to say that in the Letter of Intent there was a pledge that we would introduce legislation.

Mr. Heath: I said nothing of the sort. I said that it was in the Chancellor's Budget speech.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the Leader of the Opposition state the business for next week, for Wednesday, although the House is not yet in possession of that information?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no control over leaks, even inside the House.

Mr. Heath: May I again correct the Prime Minister? He was quite wrong in what he said about my remarks. I did not say that it was in the Letter of Intent. I have no knowledge of that, but I said that it was in the Budget speech in reference to the Letter of Intent.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and it was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that if we had an adequate alternative from the T.U.C. we would accept that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We ought to hear both sides equally fairly.

The Prime Minister: I have the text of it. I myself said on 17th April during the debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman can sit back now. The right hon. Gentleman got out of the question of a debate on industrial relations by referring to the Letter of Intent which has nothing to do with the case and now he drags in the Budget debate. If the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be willing to hear what they do not agree with. [Interruption.] Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: It is necessary to follow a rather difficult path to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's wriggles on what he said—on his refusal to deal with the question of a debate which led him by a corkscrew path, via the Letter of Intent, to my right hon. Friend's Budget speech. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist that the Prime Minister be heard. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I therefore return to the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman should use a Supply day to debate industrial relations, the first Supply day he gets. Then he can make a short speech, telling us what hon. Members opposite did during 13 years.

Sir T. Brinton: Mr. Speaker, could we get back to facts? The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that the powers granted to the T.U.C. on 5th June were, in his opinion, insufficient for it to carry out the job he asked it to do as an alternative to legislation. What powers has the T.U.C. since been granted which makes the Prime Minister believe that it can now do something which he himself said it could not do on 5th June?

The Prime Minister: The answer to that is in the annexe to the statement issued yesterday, namely, the power to place an obligation on individual unions to get unofficial strikers back to work in the cases described in the document. There was no such power whatever in the statement from Croydon.

Mr. Houghton: In view of the display of political bias and ignorance that we have had from the benches opposite this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend now cease to treat the Opposition seriously in this matter? Has he not noticed that hon. Members opposite can scarcely conceal their fury because the Parliamentary Labour Party is not going to tear itself apart to provide a Roman holiday for the enemies of the Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would not go so far as that. I acquit them, of course, of bias. I do not acquit them of ignorance. I think that their attitude


arises from a sense of shame at their total inability to do anything themselves.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. Is there any point in the Prime Minister being heard further? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Dame Irene Ward.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Prime Minister inform the House how he enjoys being the Grand Old Duke of York?

The Prime Minister: I am genuinely flattered by the hon. Lady by her use of an old crack that I once made about her own Front Bench. I take it in the same spirit as it was then offered, but in our case we said that we would not introduce legislation if we had an effective alternative, and we have, but their attitude was different.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend agree that if the attitude of the Opposition this afternoon really were to represent the attitude of employers it would be amazing that there are not more unofficial strikes than fewer? Will my right hon. Friend now confirm that in his broadcast tonight he will put equal pressure on the C.B.I. to improve its procedures in industrial relations as he puts on the T.U.C.?

The Prime Minister: I have no reason at all to think that anything we have heard from the benches opposite this afternoon represents the view of at any rate progressive employers. My right hon. Friend and I hope to meet the C.B.I. later this afternoon to discuss these serious problems. Whatever differences there are between the C.B.I. and the Government about prescriptions for dealing with them, the C.B.I. and the Government take these problems very seriously indeed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Following is the undertaking:
The General Council has unanimously agreed that in operating Congress Rule 11, as recommended by the General Council and approved by the Special Congress on 5th June:

(a) Where a dispute has led or is likely to lead to an unconstitutional stoppage of work which involves directly or indirectly large bodies of workers or which, if protracted,

may have serious consequences, the General Council shall ascertain and assess all the facts, having regard to paragraphs 20 to 27 of "Programme for Action".
(b) In cases where they consider it unreasonable to order an unconditional return to work, they will tender the organisation or organisations concerned their considered opinion and advice with a view to promoting a settlement.
(c) Where, however, they find there should be no stoppage of work before procedure is exhausted, they will place an obligation on the organisation or organisations concerned to take energetic steps to obtain an immediate resumption of work, including action within their rules if necessary, so that negotiations can proceed.
(d) Should an affiliated organisation not comply with an obligation placed on it under (c) above, the General Council shall duly report to Congress or deal with the organisation under Clauses (b), (c), (d) and (h) of Rule 13.

18th June, 1969.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD JUNE and TUESDAY, 24TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Development of Tourism Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Letter of Intent.
This will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Civil Aviation (Navigational Service Charges) (Third Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY, 26TH JUNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
FRIDAY, 27TH JUNE—Motions on the Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order, on the Agricultural. Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order, the Small Farm (Business Management) Schemes, the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation (Variation) Scheme and on the Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum prices) Order.
MONDAY, 30TH JUNE—Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Heath: The Government having dropped the Parliament (No. 2) Bill because of the immense urgency of introducing the Industrial Relations Bill, and having now dropped the Industrial Relations Bill, can the Leader of the House say whether time is now to be taken up with a Bill to gerrymander constituencies under the Reports of the Boundaries Commissions?

Mr. Peart: There is no question of any gerrymandering. There will be a debate on this subject this afternoon, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement.

Mr. Heath: If there is to be no gerrymandering, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government will accept the Reports of the Commission in full and implement them?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will await the Home Secretary's statement today.

Mr. Dickens: Since it appears that the Letter of Intent is to be published either on Monday or Tuesday of next week, may we be told by the Leader of the House whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to make a Ministerial statement on that day prior to the debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to be in a position to make a statement on Monday about the Letter of Intent and we shall have a full debate on Wednesday.

Mr. Fortescue: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 321, standing in my name and in the names of over 70 hon. Members on both sides of the House, on dispensing by doctors in rural areas? Can he find time for a debate on that Motion next week?

[That this House notes the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Services not to amend the National Health Service (General, Medical and Pharmaceutical

Services) Regulations, 1966; recalls that his predecessor stated publicly that these Regulations should be amended as agreed by representatives of the pharmaceutical and medical professions; and calls upon him to reconsider his decision so that the best interests of patients in rural areas may be served by ensuring that their prescriptions are dispensed by qualified pharmacists whenever possible.]

Mr. Peart: I cannot foresee time for a debate on the Motion. My right hon. Friend explained the position in reply to an hon. Member on 5th May.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that we have a lot of business ahead of us.

Mr. Boston: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his attention has been drawn to Motion No. 337, standing in the names of more than 100 hon. and right hon. Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and myself, about B.B.C. Radio 3, the Third Programme and music programmes and the very serious concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House about possible threats to the curtailment or closure of these programmes?
May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would consider the possibility of having an early debate on the whole subject?

[That this House recognises the outstanding contribution to broadcasting made by B.B.C. Radio 3, the Third Programme and the Music Programme and the value of the material carried by these services to listeners throughout the country and abroad; regards it as essential that the British Broadcasting Corporation should continue to cater for these sizeable and growing minority interests; views with concern repeated reports that Radio 3 may be closed or curtailed; and urges the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure that in any charges recommended as a result of the Corporation's current review of sound broadcasting there is no reduction in the quality and quantity of, in particular, the British Broadcasting Corporation's serious music output.]

Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion which has all-party support. It is an important matter. I will consider it sympathetically, but I cannot alter the business for next week.

Mr. Hooson: Do the Government intend to move the Writ for the Swindon by-election next week, and if not, why not?

Mr. Pearl: That is for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, not me.

Mr. Tuck: Last week, my right hon. Friend primised sympathetic consideration to the question of a short debate on the closure of S. G. Brown's factory at Watford. May I ask him whether as 50 men have already been laid off, he can be a little more specific?

Mr. Peart: I cannot promise a debate next week. It is an important matter. I will refer it to my right hon. Friend who is responsible.

Mr. Tilney: May I ask whether the Leader of the House, who wrote the preface to the Command Paper on Marine Science and Technology, can say when there is to be a debate on the resources of the sea bed?

Mr. Peart: This very important matter was raised by one of my hon. Friends last week. I will consider this very sympathetically, but I cannot find time next week.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 330, standing in my name and the names of 121 other hon. Members—on both sides, I might add? Would he endeavour to provide time to debate not only the appalling conditions of Alexandros Panagoulis, but to debate the conditions of Greek prisoners and the total lack of democracy in Greece under the present junta?

[That this House calls on the British Government to bring to the attention of the Greek Junta the British people's desire that Alexandros Panagoulis should be treated humanely, and not be further subjected to torture.]

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the Motion, dealing with clemency for Mr. Panagoulis. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Greek Government know our views on

this matter, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Mr. Emery: Would the Leader of the House consider altering the business next week, or, if that is impossible, give an assurance that immediately after next week he will find time for a debate on the report of the Hunt Committee, because so many local authorities are concerned about being able to have the view of the House on this matter?

Mr. Peart: This is an important matter. Discussions are going on with local and regional authorities. But I could not promise to alter the business.

Mr. David Watkins: Will my right hon. Friend make time available to enable us to come to a decision on my Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance Bill and other Private Members' Bills which were at an advanced stage but were lost last Friday because of the protracted proceedings on the Divorce Reform Bill?

Mr. Peart: I did say that I would consider this very sympathetically. I hope to have a meeting with sponsors of Bills where there is a Bill in an advanced stage and its passage through the House might be completed. I will give the matter very careful consideration.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Referring to the opening question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does the Leader of the House recall that the sole reason given for the withdrawal of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was the pressing need for industrial legislation? Will he therefore now give a date for the introduction of the former Measure, or admit that this was another "phoney" excuse?

Mr. Peart: I think that there were other factors than those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Foot: As it appears to be the case that there is no Supply day available next week for a discussion of the industrial relations settlement which we all welcome, will the Leader of the House undertake to inform the whole House as soon as he does receive a request from the Opposition for a future Supply day to be allocated?
Will my right hon. Friend take into account that many of us would think it an abuse of debates in the House that


have been promised if it was thought that a debate on the Letter of Intent could be used for the major debate we wish to have on the subject?

Mr. Peart: I agree that this is a matter for the Opposition, but when I know their view I will certainly make a statement to the House.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When are we to have the Merchant Shipping Bill? After all, a great deal of ground has been cleared in favour of it. Can we expect it before the end of July?

Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific. I have announced the business for next week. I note what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Archer: In view of the additional time that is now, happily, available to the right hon. Gentleman, and the fact that discussions about the ocean floor are imminent at the United Nations, may we have a debate on this subject at an early date?

Mr. Peart: This has been raised previously this afternoon. It is an important matter. If we do have time available, then I believe that that is the kind of subject which the House would like to discuss; but there are many other pressing matters which also need to be discussed.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not speedily provide an opportunity for a debate on the future pattern of broadcasting and the position of the regions, these matters may well have been decided before the House and the public have an opportunity of discussing them?

Mr. Peart: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should have walked out of a private meeting yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] After all, this matter was being discussed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss merits on business.

Mr. Peart: I would have thought there were other opportunities outside the House to discuss it. I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable regret in the seaports if we do not have the Merchant Shipping Bill before the end of July? We were given an undertaking that we would see it and we want to see it.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the feeling on this, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does not the Leader of the House consider that the Adjournment debate on Tuesday showed that it was really urgent to have a full day's debate on the Middle East? Also, now that there is more time available, will he also arrange debates on Rhodesia and Biafra?

Mr. Pearl: I know that there are many important matters in the field of foreign affairs. I will look at this carefully and sympathetically.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Motion about cars for disabled persons has been awaiting debate for a long time? Will he at last relent and find time to discuss it next week?

[That this House is of opinion that Clause 12 of the regulation relating to disabled persons' cars, which provides that when the child or children of the disabled person reaches tthe age of 14 years or ceases to depend on the disabled person the car will not be replaced, by substituting a later age which will enable the disabled person to continue his or her care of the relevant child or children.]

Mr. Peart: I admire my hon. and learned Friend's persistency and consistency on this subject, but, despite the worthy objectives of the Motion, I cannot find time for it next week.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Now that my right hon. Friend has a little more time to spare, will he remember that there are a number of important Private Members' Bills which have still not been completed? Will he consider the possibility of making available a little more Private Members' time?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, as my hon. Friend knows.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a statement about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
As the House knows, the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders' Board yesterday decided to accept the offer made by the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the conditions attached to it. The S.I.B. has made it clear that it will be ready, early next year, to discuss the developing financial situation with the reconstructed board and management of U.C.S. in the light of the performance of the group following the implementation of the present plan. The renegotiation by the boilermakers of the present fall-back guarantee will be necessary immediately as part of this plan.
This decision, which I am sure was the right one, has been made possible by many factors and especially by the co-operation from the trade unions involved.
I should like to pay tribute to Sir William Swallow and the S.I.B. for the part that they played in making this possible.
I have always believed, Mr. Speaker, that this task of reorganisation could be carried through and I am sure that the House will want to join me in expressing that confidence now.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There will be general relief that the long-drawn-out crisis is over. However, will the Minister agree that it is essential that all concerned should now concentrate on making U.C.S. a viable, highly competitive enterprise? Does he attach special importance to the proposed renegotiation of the productivity agreement with the Boilermakers' Society, and can he tell us more about that?

Mr. Benn: I referred in my statement to the boilermakers. This is a matter which the S.I.B. has provided as one of its conditions, in my judgment quite rightly. It is a matter for the management and the union involved and I think that I should leave them to it. What has emerged out of the last few months of discussion has been a readiness on the part of all those involved on the Clyde to take responsibility upon their own shoulders. This is the most important thing which has come out of it.

Mr. Small: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the marathon crisis on the Clyde we are grateful to him for the urgency with which he attacked this question? Is he satisfied that the Government's share of the equity will be sufficient to give moderate control of the destiny of the group in the future?

Mr. Benn: The proposal by the S.I.B. was made under the Act. It involves £22 million in grants and £3 million in loans for the purposes of meeting transitional losses. This will provide a substantial, though not a majority, holding in U.C.S. It was not the object of the exercise, but it means that the S.I.B. will have the major holding in U.C.S. and I think that the House would feel that that was right in view of the sums involved.

Mr. Galbraith: While we are glad that, for the time being anyway, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders will be able to carry on, we deplore the brinkmanship with which the Minister and the Government have conducted this affair, for it has done nothing but harm to the prospects for the Upper Clyde.
Can the Minister explain the nature of the difference of £3 million between what the company considered necessary and what the Government were willing to offer?

Mr. Benn: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not follow this controversy. Had he done so, he would have known that the Government never delayed for more than 48 hours on any request that came from the Clyde. The problem was a problem arising from the inheritance of the past. I do not want to say more about it now. At no stage did we delay in giving decisions on the proposals put forward.
What has been most damaging—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue it—has been public speculation about the finances of a company the success of which, as with all companies, depends upon its being able to conduct its affairs with a reasonable degree of privacy. I hope that from now on that will be possible.

Mr. Lawson: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the kind of problem facing the Upper Clyde is a problem typical of large sections of British,


and particularly Scottish, industry? Will he take it from me that the people of Scotland are grateful to him for his efforts to ensure that this concern gets down to the business of building ships economically?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, but particularly for his last phrase, because the security of employment on the Clyde and maintenance of its capability depends upon people there making money out of making ships. Anybody can make ships at a loss; it is making money out of making ships which is difficult. That is what I hope the S.I.B. help, through reconstruction and in other ways, will make possible.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I welcome this new chance to save the Clyde from catastrophic disaster. Will the Minister re-emphasise that not only must the Clyde build ships economically, but it must have particular reference to delivery dates? Will he now urge all concerned to place all their interests on the hard work necessary to get delivery dates right, so that confidence to place new orders may be quickly restored?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady, who has taken a keen interest in this matter, is on the point. However, whether it is for me to tell Upper Clyde Shipbuilders how to run their affairs, I doubt. My object in the exercise throughout has been to get both sides to accept responsibility themselves for the solution of their own problems. Judging from what has happened over the last few weeks, I am confident, and I always have been throughout, that this task may be accomplished successfully.

Mr. Rankin: During his visits to Clydeside, did not my right hon. Friend observe that one of the chief troubles there was lack of consultation by employers with the men and lack of co-operation? Does he not agree that unless we manage to establish that on the Clyde the troubles that have faced us may again occur in the not too far distant future?

Mr. Benn: The problem of communications in industry is not confined to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. Communications between management and shop

stewards throughout large parts of industry are nothing like good enough. One of the things that has emerged from this crisis has been the readiness of the union to accept responsibility and to institutionalise that responsibility by machinery that will guarantee much better communications in future.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great relief on Clydeside that this catastrophe has been averted and appreciation of the time and attention which he has given to this great problem? However, as a further contribution to the restoring of confidence quickly, will he say that the facilities of the S.I.B. and E.C.G.D. for taking on new orders will be available to the group?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and also for coming to talk to me and putting his own experience at my disposal when I was there 10 days ago.
The statement by the S.I.B. goes as far as would be reasonable in the circumstances and says that the Board would be ready to discuss early next year, if necessary, with the reconstructed board and management the developing financial situation. I think that that is all I need say about that.
Export credits are handled separately, but to the best of my knowledge they have not posed any special problems, other than those which have been raised by the shipbuilding industry, against the rest of which the Clyde is competing. We must not put one group in an advantageous position relative to the others, although the nature of the problems inherited may differ from place to place.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outstanding impression in the negotiations has been of the co-operation from the trade unions in spite of what everybody knows to have been a completely inefficient management? Is he aware that there will be strong support—and we should not be mealy mouthed about this—for the Government action and the S.I.B. intervention in changes in the board?

Mr. Benn: This is all agreed as part of the settlement announced yesterday. I need not go into the details, because this will be discussed during the next few days between the two sides involved.


However, I should like to pay tribute to the trade union leaders themselves in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders who accepted responsibility, on behalf of their own members and later with the support of their own members, for some very detailed decisions to maintain the viability of the group.

Mrs. Ewing: As one of the main difficulties has been the adequacy of the working capital of U.C.S., may we take the Minister's statement to mean that he is satisfied that it will be sufficient and that U.C.S. has changed its mind about the adequacy? For example, does it now think that £5 million will be sufficient for it to be able to alter its purchasing method of steel, which was one of the bones of contention?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady knows that there has been a difference of judgment on this matter over a long period. I do not want to add any gloss to what has been said by the board of U.C.S. in its statement yesterday in accepting the conditions. However, the feeling that there was a gap to which could be attached an actual figure did more to destroy the confidence of customers and suppliers than any other single factor. Therefore, if I am reluctant to go into the alternative judgments about what would or would not have been sufficient, it is because I hope that, whatever else we do, we shall not repeat that experience in respect of this or any other company.

Mr. Barnett: I am conscious of the social responsibility which my right hon. Friend has fulfilled. However, does he not feel, in view of what he has said about the commercial aspects of this sort of transaction, that he owes it to the House to give some facts and figures to explain why he believes this to be a viable proposition when no commercial organisation has felt able to lend even a marginal amount of money? After all, it is the taxpayer who is providing the funds. Will not my right hon. Friend therefore consider presenting the House with facts and figures to justify in commercial terms the provision of these sums?

Mr. Benn: If my hon. Friend had applied that argument it would have led him to vote against the Shipbuilding Industry Bill which we introduced, after the Geddes Report, to provide help for

the reconstruction of the shipbuilding industry and to meet transitional losses. It is a matter of judgment by the S.I.B. board what to recommend and the House decided that this should be left to the judgment of Sir William Swallow and his colleagues. I am responsible for assenting and agreeing to their recommendations and I am accountable to the House for that.
However, if my hon. Friend thinks that that means that the private affairs of private companies with whom the Government have relations should be published in detail, I think that he is going too far. I believe that discussion of the annual report of the S.I.B., which I have to present and defend, will provide far more Parliamentary accountability than has been provided by previous Governments for support of private industry.

Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper giving at least that amount of information which, under the Companies Act, a public company would have to give when reconstructing its capital? I appreciate what he said about privacy, but would he not consider giving rather more information to the House than has so far been made available to us?

Mr. Benn: I will consider anything that the hon. Gentleman says, because he has been concerned with this matter from the time when the legislation was in Committee. But we agreed then that the report of the S.I.B. should be as full as possible. I am open to Questions. I understand that I am to be invited to give evidence to a Select Committee of the House which is interested in this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not push me into what would be damaging and which would lead any Government doing business of any kind with industry into being obliged to hold discussions in such a way that it would be impossible for the firm concerned to maintain normal business practices. That is why I am not able to go beyond what I have already said about a White Paper.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and


important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's abandonment of their promised legislation in respect of trade union reform.
To succeed, Mr. Speaker, I have to satisfy you under the Standing Order as to three criteria. I shall deal with them in turn but briefly, both to save the time of the House and because a strong case does not need lengthy advocacy.
The matter is clearly specific. It is true that it is negative, a non-event, rather like the emperor's clothes in the fairy tale, but inaction and a decision to shirk action can be just as specific as the positive act and often more dire and lasting in its consequences.
Equally, the matter is clearly important. We know that from the high testimony of the Prime Minister himself. But in case there should be an incorrigible sceptic in the House for whom the Prime Minister's testimony is not conclusive, I would assure him that the importance of the matter is established by other and weighty considerations.
It is important in the context of the country's economic future. It is important in the constitutional context so that we may see whether there are to be powerful estates of the realm outside the sovereignty of Parliament and above the rule of law. It is important in a third context—that of the candour and credibility, the consistency and character, of the present Administration.
Finally, it is urgent because of the effect of this indecision and retreat from promised action on the credit and standing of our country at this urgently critical

time and on Britain's prospects in the grim struggle for economic survival in which, after five years of Labour government, the country is currently engaged.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's abandonment of its promised legislation in respect of trade union reform".
I understood indirectly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, both this afternoon and all that happened previously, but I must rule that his application does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit it to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY], considered.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS)

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and Scotland to implement in full, and without further delay, the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.
The events of the past hour and ten minutes have somewhat truncated the time available for this debate and, therefore, I shall try to put my case in shorter form than I would perhaps otherwise have done.
We tabled the Motion, not knowing the Government's intentions, because we wished, first, to ascertain what they were and, secondly, to bring to the Government's notice and to place on record our strong views about these reports, both as to the propriety of the action to be taken and as to the requirements of the law in relation to it. We hoped to do so, and we still hope to do so, before the Government have taken up a position from which they could not withdraw without loss of face.
What I say to the Secretary of State will, I hope, be couched in language which will give offence neither to him nor to the party of which he is a member and which, for this purpose, he represents. We have had examples in the past 24 hours of the Government changing their mind. I do not know whether they will have to change their mind on this matter, but I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to what I have to say before taking up a position from which withdrawal is impossible. If the Government harbour intentions inconsistent with our views as recorded in the Motion, I hope that he will have second thoughts.
I do not think that anyone in the House doubts the importance of the delineation of Parliamentary constituency boundaries. We in this country invented Parliamentary

democracy. We are widely looked to as a pattern of what things should be, and I am sure that the Secretary of State shares my desire that we should do nothing to impair that reputation. No one who is a mature political person doubts that the delineation of Parliamentary boundaries has from time to time been the subject not only of considerable controversy but of notorious impropriety in one country or another. The famous Mr. Gerry Mander, who, I believe, came from the United States and lent a new word of political vituperation to the language, used the delineation of boundaries as his principal method.
No one who has followed the controversy about the local boundaries in Northern Ireland recently will doubt that it is extremely important for a society which wishes to retain its reputation for constitutional propriety to be extemely careful about such matters. Whatever may be said about the local boundaries in Northern Ireland, the Parliamentary constituencies, which are under the direction of this House, have not, as far as I know, come in for comparable criticism on either side.
I do not wish to adopt an unctuous position to the Secretary of State. No one who has been connected with a political party for as long as he and I have will pretend that any of us can claim to be entirely devoid of original sin. We are all subject to pressures from our supporters and party organisations. May I say in passing that by no means all such pressures are illegitimate. We often spend our time abusing the professional organisation of the other—we in abusing Transport House, and hon. Members opposite in abusing the Conservative Central Office. But they are, by and large, highly reputable and experienced men and women, and it would be a mistake if we always spoke in pejorative terms of one another, because the public might believe us both, which would not be to the advantage of public life. By no means all the pressures to which we are subject are necessarily insincere, even when they are illegitimate.
It is easy to persuade oneself of the advantages of a course which will prove beneficial, and I am a long way from making angry charges of dishonesty before circumstances justify my doing so. But it has been recognised for a very long time that no party has a right to be


judge, advocate and administrator entirely in its own cause. For a long time it has been a necessary part of political hygiene in this country that Parliamentary boundaries should be delineated by boundary commissions for the purpose of ensuring not merely that no impropriety can take place but that it is seen that no impropriety is taking place.
That was so for many years before 1944 when, according to my recollection, the permanent Boundary Commissions were instituted. They were instituted by the 1944 Act to take account of the fact that periodical reviews by ad hoc commissions, which had proved the rule up to then, were unsatisfactory owing to the important and constant shifts in population which render boundaries archaic after a comparatively short time. In 1949, when we repealed the 1944 Act and re-enacted some of its provisions in a modified form, we made the time bracket within which reviews should take place from three to seven years. This was increased to a bracket of from seven to 15 years by the amending Act of 1958. Therefore, there have been only three comparable precedents.
By the 1944 Act and the existing legislation, the Government are under an obligation to place the Boundary Commissions' reports before Parliament "as soon as may be". The English and Scottish reports were received in April, the others rather later. I am not sure how soon "may be" is. It has certainly taken this Government a little longer than either Mr. Chuter Ede in 1947–48—he placed the report before Parliament within a month—or the 1954 Conservative Government, which placed their four reports, except the Scottish one, within a week. This Government have taken a little longer.
If, however, the Government performed their statutory duty as we consider they should in other respects I do not suppose that any of us would complain about the delay. It is a little important to understand their statutory duty. As I wish to get the words exact, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I quote from the 1949 Act, which lays down that
As soon as may be after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report to the Secretary of State under this Act, he shall lay the report before Parliament together, except in a case where the report states that

no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom with which the Commission are concerned, with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.
It is important to consider the Government's legal obligation. It is to lay the report "as soon as may be", whatever that may mean. It is to accompany the laying of the report with draft Orders in Council, each relating to the relevant portion of the United Kingdom, giving effect to the recommendations of the Commision, with or without modifications. In a later subsection it is provided that if modifications are proposed reasons must be stated.
At 2.30 this afternoon I was able to acquire in the Vote Office the Boundary Commission's Report for England. I was not able to acquire the other Boundary Commissions' Reports. They may be available now, but I can only report what I was given.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): They were all there.

Mr. Hogg: Then the fault was either mine or that of the Vote Office. But I was certainly not given, in addition to the one report which I received, a draft Order in Council giving effect, either with or without modification, to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. In other words, as I stand here, the Government are in breach of their statutory obligation; they have not done what the statute requires, and they have broken the law.
The statutory provision which I have read, moreover, is not satisfied by a Government who reject the Boundary Commission's Report. The law is that they shall with the Report lay a draft Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations of the report. They are not entitled to reject it, although they may modify it. Second, at least as I read the Statute, they are not entitled to implement part of it and reject the rest. They are not entitled to implement part of it and substitute their own proposals in regard to the rest. It is the whole report on the relevant portion of the United Kingdom which they are bound to implement with or without modification and the draft proposals for the implementation of which they must lay


at the same time as the report is laid before Parliament.
If the Government want to do anything else, they must produce a Bill. If minded to break the law, a Government with a temporary Parliamentary majority can always unconstitutionally use its Parliamentary majority to pass a Statute breaking the law retrospectively and indemnifying the Government against the breach. However, the reason why we have put the Motion down is that we should regard such a step in this context as a constitutional impropriety. It would strike a serious blow at the integrity of our public life and our Parliamentary institutions. It would be an instance of the improper use of a Parliamentary majority. It would be an example of changing the rules while the match was being played, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could not escape without a serious blemish upon their personal reputations if they contemplated such an act. Speaking for myself, I very much hope that they would not contemplate such an act. We consider, with The Times, which wrote about this a few days ago in a leading article, that although there may be some inconveniences in keeping the law—there are usually some inconveniences in keeping most laws—the Government have no excuse for breaking the law.
It will be accepted, at least, that after the 15 years which have elapsed since the last review the present Parliamentary boundaries are intolerable—intolerable, that is, for the purposes of a general election. We are at present engaged in a by-election contest at Birmingham, Lady-wood, where the electorate is only 18,000, having gone down by 41 per cent. since 1964. Manchester, Exchange is virtually as small as Ladywood, and Leeds, South-East has fewer than 30,000. In addition to those three, there are 22 seats in England with fewer than 40,000 voters. At the other end of the scale, there are four seats with more than 100,000 voters, the prize going to Billericay with 113,000, which, incidentally, has risen by 25 per cent., since only 1964. There are a further 12 above 90,000 and another 31 above 80,000.
Quite apart from the law—this is not a case in which the question is one of mere technicality—it would be intolerable to allow those anomalies to continue into

another General Election. I gather from the Report for England, which I have glanced at superficially since 2.30, that that is the view also of the Boundary Commission.
We keep on preaching to others about "One man one vote". What sort of practice have we adopted here? If Ladywood is to be equated with Billericay, we have either to say, "Six men one vote" or, "Six votes one man", in one or other of the two. It becomes an intolerable hypocrisy if, when we complain of other countries not observing the constitutional proprieties in this respect or even of different parts of the United Kingdom observing them less than we desire, we deliberately adopt a course of action perpetuating such anomalies.
I should not be at all happy, even apart from the technicalities of the law, to try to take out from any one part of the United Kingdom a selected number of constituencies as being worse than others and deal only with them. That would not only be illegal in the present situation, and improper if one tried to legislate retrospectively to justify a breach of the existing law, but would be a political outrage, because there is only a matter of degree between one case and another and because, as every member of a Boundary Commission has always known, one cannot take out individual constituencies without altering the balance of the whole.
It would not be legitimate to act in that way in respect of any of these four reports—neither legal nor politically legitimate—and if it were done on one of the four only, let us say in England and not in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there would be additional ground for complaint.
I put one other matter to the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the question of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. It is true that the Schedule to the 1949 Act provides that the Boundary Commission—not the Minister—should have regard to local government boundaries and to local communities—so far, that is, as is practicable. It is not bound to the boundaries pedantically, but it must have regard to them. But the local government boundaries to which the Commission must have regard under the statute are the existing local government boundaries, not some hypothetical local government boundaries of


the future. That is the law, and it is also political wisdom.
We had an exchange across the Floor the other day about the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. I did not take part in it myself, but I thought that both sides were agreed that the proposals would require very careful study. Even the main features of the Redcliffe-Maud Report are matters of controversy, though not yet—and I hope that they will not become—matters of controversy between the parties. They have been hotly disputed in the Press already. We cannot hold up our implementation of the existing law, changing the rules during the match either by flouting the law or by legislating retrospectively to alter it, on the excuse that local government boundaries may be different, though we do not know how different or different in what respects, if or when the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are carried into effect or other proposals are implemented in place of them. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend say, "Or when?". That was the very next point to which I intended to come.
Whether or not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right, as I think he was, in saying that the actual implementation on the ground of this report would probably not take place earlier than 1974, it is absolutely clear that it will not take place even in a legislative form before the next General Election and not in an actual form for two or three years after the legislation, because this is the most fundamental change in local government practice, certainly as regards England, since the Conquest. To pretend that this could conceivably be an excuse for delaying a situation of the kind that I have tried to lay before the House, I hope fairly dispassionately, is to pretend something which no sober or dispassionate person can possibly believe.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I cannot give way to four hon. Members. I was about to plunge into my peroration. However I will give way to the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard).

Mr. Ivor Richard: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to me before

his peroration. I know that this is a delicate moment at which to ask him to resume his seat. On the assumption, which I think is a legitimate one, that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, or something like them, are likely to to be put into effect, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal for full implementation of the Boundary Commission's Reports is carried out does it not mean another Boundary Commission sitting as soon as the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have been put into effect so as to readjust the new Parliamentary boundaries to the Redcliffe-Maud ones?

Mr. Hogg: Yes it certainly does mean that. If my time scale is even approximately right, that new boundary commission would be plumb in the middle of the time bracket which the original Act of 1949, although not the amending Act of 1958, prescribed as compulsory.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On the point of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Liverpool City Corporation has decided not to re-ward its city, although the wards vary between 4,000 and 20,000, because its finance and policy committee decided yesterday to wait until Maud? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use his influence with the Tory Liverpool City Council?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I was aware of what the Liverpool Corporation had done? The answer is quite simple—"No. I was not aware of it". No doubt there were other hon. Members also in my state of ignorance in that matter.
After this interlude, I must address some words to the Secretary of State. He is an extremely mature political personality, as we all know. I had not intended, and I hope I have not succeeded in appearing, to be unduly pious or unctuous about this business. I personally do not know what the effects of the Boundary Commissions' Reports will be. I saw what the Press thought. I saw what the two party offices thought. The Conservatives thought that it would mean another 15 Conservative seats and the Labour Party thought it would mean another six Conservative seats. The Times said that the Prime Minister's seat would be one of those that might be


particularly vulnerable if the Commissions' Reports were implemented.
We are reasonable, mature people, I hope—all of us, on both sides of the House. We are not political innocents. Does the Secretary of State sincerely believe that any politically mature person if the right hon. Gentleman starts gerrymandering now will ever believe that he did so honestly?

5.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I want to begin by expressing the indebtedness of the House to the members of all the Commissions for the painstaking way in which they have carried out their general reviews and for the detailed reports that they have made. They have spent a great deal of time—four years—on them. On the last occasion—in 1954—it was 15 months. The reports of all four Boundary Commissions have been published this afternoon and arrangements have been made for a Welsh version of the Report of the Commission of Wales to be available next week.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a mild complaint about the time-able for publication. When I remind him that on this occasion the Commissions took four years to complete their consideration, as against 15 months on the previous occasion, he perhaps will not think it unduly long for me to take two months to consider and print these reports. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition has rushed into this debate. Perhaps he had better hear the end of it before he decides whether it is extraordinary. He has a great and delicate felicity for rushing into things before he knows where he is.
The timetable is within the timetable for publishing the 1954 reports. As the mild complaint was made, allow me to reply to it equally mildly. In 1954 the Scottish report was submitted on 23rd August. The other reports were received on 10th November. All were published on 19th November. On this occasion the English report was received on 21st April, the Scottish report on 24th April, the Welsh report on 19th May, and the Northern Ireland report on 10th June. All were published on 19th June—the same interval of nine days between the receipt of the last report and the date

of publication. The reports are considerably greater in size and complexity than they were in 1954. However, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended too much by that complaint, and I do not think there is anything very much between us on it.
I did not quite understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that he wanted to give me time to reflect before I took up a fixed position from which withdrawal was impossible and that this was the reason for this debate. The Opposition were aware when they made the arrangements for the debate that the date of publication would be today. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Act provides that when the reports of the Commissions are laid before Parliament I shall lay the draft of an Order in Council to give effect to them at the same time. Therefore, I do not follow how I can have more time for mature consideration, when, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself points out, by not laying an Order in Council at 2.30 this afternoon I might be construed as being in breach of my obligations at the present time. I am not quite sure what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant by it, but both legs of this argument cannot be true together.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said that I am required to lay Orders drafted either in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissions or with modifications in those recommendations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the words. They are worth repeating:
… the Secretary of State … shall lay the report before Parliament together … with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.
So the question that I obviously have to consider first before I come to Parliament is whether modifications are desirable on this occasion and, if so, whether they are modifications of such a character that it would be proper for me to put them before the House without fresh legislation, or whether it would be more proper for me to bring forward fresh legislation to fulfil the obligations.
Let us consider the background. First, what the Commissions have done, as the


right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly said, and as they are required to do by the law as it stands at present, is to base their recommendations on existing local government boundaries. This is what the law requires of them.
There are, of course, many "outs" for them. They do not have to adhere to it in all circumstances. The redistribution rules have detailed provisions for avoiding, as far as practicable, the linking of two county boroughs. They are told, under those rules, that they should not link part of a county with a county borough and should try to avoid dividing non-county boroughs, rural districts and urban districts between different constituencies as far as possible. There are corresponding rules for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 25 of the English report and paragraph 6 of the Welsh report make it clear that the Commission did not and could not take into account prospective local government changes. I realise that the Opposition, by choosing this issue for debate today—that is, the day of publication of the reports, have not given themselves time to study them, so perhaps I should read the following from paragraph 25:
In May, 1966 the Government announced the setting up of a Royal Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of local government in England. As a consequence, the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Act 1967 provided for the dissolution of the Local Government Commission and for the removal of the duty of county councils to make country reviews under the Local Government Act 1958. The Royal Commission"—
that is, the Royal Commission on Local Government—
were expected to report in not much more than two years (i.e. mid-1968 onwards) but it seemed to us that by the time their report had been considered and any local government changes made, it would be too late to affect our general review report which had to be submitted to the Home Secretary not later than November 1969.
That is the effective date. This is the date which has determined when they make their reports and under what conditions they make their reports.
Parliament has required them to report by November, 1969, irrespective of whether they would have preferred to delay it or not, and they have reached a

perfectly valid conclusion, considering the time limit of November, 1969, laid on them. They are not free to delay their reports any further, even though they are conscious of and have taken into account the fact that the local government report was expected, but they thought that it would be received too late to enable them to take it into account between, as it happens, the month of June and the month of November, 1969, by which time they are required to report.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: Not at the moment. I am in the middle of an intricate argument. There will be plenty of time to debate this. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that.
So they are unable to delay reporting any longer, although they are aware of, and have taken into account, the fact that the local government Commission is reporting at present. So the immediate question arises, whether, in all circumstances, Parliament wishes to adhere to November 1969 as the unalterable date for redrawing constituency boundaries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Let us hear the argument. There is no magic about the date. It is not divinely ordained, and what Parliament has done, Parliament can undo.
The new and important factor is the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, which deals with powers and with boundaries. That was what it was set up to do, and that is what it has done. These local government boundaries are the foundation, let me remind the House, of the work of the Boundaries Commission. They start on the basis of local government boundaries. But, by the imposition of the date of November, 1969, they cannot take into account changes which will clearly be made, because we have, under the law, chosen this artificial date.
We have been faced in recent days with a far-reaching proposal to redraw the whole of the local government map in England. Everybody agrees that changes in local government boundaries should be reflected in constituency changes.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Boundaries Commission is not able to delay publishing its report;


but surely he is not able to delay laying an Order. If he had wished to obviate the need for laying an Order, he should have introduced legislation and got it passed by this time. But by leaving the matter too late he is now legally bound to lay the draft Order. Why is he not doing so? Why is he gerrymandering with the Constitution in this unorthodox manner?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman might wait for the rest of my speech.
Everyone agree that changes in local government boundaries should be reflected in constituency boundaries. Is there not general agreement about this? There always has been, up to this afternoon at least. Also, it is important that constituency boundaries should follow local government boundaries as far as possible.
So I asked the question—and the Opposition, without waiting to hear the argument, have already given their answer—do we have substantial constituency changes, to be followed by a further upheaval in a few years' time, or do we defer the changes until the local government map is redrawn? This is the question that I am considering, and that I put before the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) conceded that there was a problem, but, as I understand it, his view, and that of the Leader of the Opposition, is that any other solution but their own amounts to gerrymandering. There can be no other solution, I understand. We have to ignore all the practicalities of the situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the law?"]—and deal with the situation which arises artificially because of the juxtaposition of these two reports.
The Opposition need have no fear that I shall do anything which does not have the sanction and the authority of the law. They can be quite content about that. It is proper for us to bring before the House our proposals for dealing with a matter in the light of the present circumstances, as changed by the Redcliffe-Maud Report. The requirements—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the Redcliffe-Maud Report; but the Report of the Scottish Royal

Commission, the Wheatley Commission, has not yet appeared, and we understand from the Secretary of State for Scotland that it may not appear for many weeks.

Mr. Callaghan: I am aware of that point also.
The requirements in the Act of 20 years ago has resulted in November, 1969 becoming a fixed date for redistribution. This cannot be regarded as sacrosanct for all time. Parliament must be free to amend the 1949 provisions regarding the date if it comes to the conclusion that that is right. A number of hon. Members opposite will be very glad if we do, because of the circumstances which have hampered the work of the Boundaries Commissions, and which were unknown to the originators of the 1949 Act.
Let us consider the circumstances. Of the 630 existing constituencies in the United Kingdom, the Commissions propose to alter no fewer than 410. by contrast, in 1954, alterations were proposed in 215 constituencies. No one—not even a member of the Opposition—will deny that this is a major surgical operation. It is proposing alterations of a major character, on a generous interpretation of the term, in 322 constituencies, and relatively minor alterations in a further 88. This will mean a major upheaval of the political map.
It is not merely that reorganisation by the parties and by those responsible for conducting elections would be necessary on a big scale, although that is important in itself. It is not in the interests of the constituencies that there should be constant change. Constituencies are not merely areas bounded by a line on a map; they are living communities with a unity, a history and a personality of their own. If hon. Gentlemen will try to forget their party prejudice for a moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—they will be ready to concede in their quieter and more sober moments that if we are to justify such a large upheaval affecting two-thirds of the constituencies, Parliament should be able to guarantee thereafter a substantial period free from further change.
But could we guarantee it? In England, it is clear that the setting up of a new system of local government in consequence of the report of the Royal


Commission would entail further drastic amendment of constituency boundaries within a quite short period. When I compare the Redcliffe-Maud Report with the Boundary Commission maps, I see that between 90 and 100 of the constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission would be divided between two or more of the recommended main local government units. Outside Greater London there would be no more than two units out of the total number proposed where constituency boundaries and local government boundaries were coterminous.
A similar situation exists in Wales, where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is engaged in consultations over his proposals for reorganisation. Nineteen of the proposed constituencies there would contain a part of more than one new county district.
About one in four, or certainly one in five, of the total number of constituencies in England outside Greater London, and one half of those in Wales, would be directly affected. But that is by no means the end. It would then become necessary to fit the remaining parts of these constituencies into new constituencies. So a second wave would be affected, and beyond that a third wave. It is quite clear that nothing short of a further general review of constituencies involving yet another major upheaval—not a minor upheaval—of the political map would follow within a few years, and nothing less than that would do.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said to the House, "That is all right; it will fall plumb in the middle of the next review that Parliament in any case intended." That is true; it would fall plumb in the middle. But what he is saying to the House in those circumstances is that he wants two extra upheavals, affecting hundreds of constituencies, within the period of seven to ten years. I claim that it would be against the best interests of the constituencies and our affairs to manage things in this way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Callaghan: There is not much choice among rotten apples. I give way

to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).

Mr. Peter Emery: I find that remark particularly offensive. Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept and announce that his whole argument is based on the hypothesis that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will be enacted by Parliament, and that is a hypothesis which is not right at this moment?

Mr. Callaghan: Following his statement on 11th June on the recommendations in the Redcliffe-Maud Report, the Prime Minister indicated that consultations with the local authorities were to proceed at once with the idea of producing a White Paper before the end of this year. He indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that, while no firm estimate could be given, he believed that the Leader of the Opposition was rather pessimistic in assuming that it would be 1974 before the recommendations were implemented. It is important, as I think we have all agreed, that constituency changes should follow as rapidly as possible on the changes in the local government areas. We cannot subject constituencies to a second major upheaval of this sort within such a short space of time, and there are few parties which would welcome it if it were decided to do so.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what the Prime Minister said in reply to my right hon. Friend's remarks. Does he not remember that the White Paper on Welsh local government reform was produced in July, 1967, and was not debated in the House until the autumn of 1968? Was there not reason for my right hon. Friend to have some doubts?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it is a matter of judgment. The Government intend that these local government discussions should take place at an early date, if only for the simple reason, which I have found is widely shared in the provinces, that they do not want too much uncertainty about the future of local government. They want adequate and full consultation, but they want conclusions to be drawn swiftly because of the effect on the operation of their affairs, their staff and the slow-down of their programmes. Representations have been made to me within the last week that the local authorities do not want a


long drawn out wrangle on local government boundaries or powers. They want full consultation; they then want the decisions to be taken and implemented. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think there will be too much delay.

Mr. John Farr: Is not the Home Secretary falling into the grave error of assuming that Parliament will agree to the radical changes in county boundaries proposed in the Redcliffe-Maud Report? Some of these changes are very drastic, and Parliament, when it considers the report, may in its wisdom not approve of them.

Mr. Callaghan: I should not be surprised if some changes were made, but the fact that they are going on is accepted on a non-party basis on both sides of the House.
I come back to the point that it has not been our policy in the past that we should be enslaved in deciding on redistribution at a single date irrespective of the consequences that surround it. Our history shows that, except for the last two occasions, general reviews followed by redistribution of seats have been comparatively rare. Following the Reform Act, 1832, they have taken place at intervals not of 15 years or seven years but of roughly 30 years—in 1867–68, in 1885, in 1910 and in 1948. Some people would argue, and I would agree, that an interval of 30 years between redistributions is too long, but many would argue that our present intervals are not long enough.
On the occasion of the last general review, Gwilym Lloyd George, when he was Home Secretary, in reply to the general complaint that came from the House, said that the interval between general reviews of three years' minimum and seven years' maximum was far too short because of the upsets which were bound to be caused by redistribution. That is why we amended the interval to between ten and 15 years. There is still a view that this is not a period by which we should necessarily be bound in determining the exact date when the redistribution takes place.
It seems to the Government that this is the problem which faces us now, and it is our duty to bring before the House proposals for dealing with it so as to

avoid the too frequent changes of constituency boundaries which would result from the consequences of implementing anything like the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
The Royal Commission on Local Government did not cover London. London's boundaries were fixed some years ago. The objections that I have been raising in relation to England do not therefore apply to London. Here I remind the House that we are dealing with over 100 constituencies. Unlike England generally, there is no case for waiting in London. I propose, therefore, to introduce legislation which will give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for constituencies in Greater London.

Mr. Hogg: Shame.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Member for St. Marylebone shouts "Shame". There is hilarity on the opposite side of the House. I ought perhaps to report that I was requested so to do by the Conservative majority on the Greater London Council at their last meeting.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, but not to break the law by not implementing proposals for the rest of the country.

Mr. Callaghan: The Conservative majority on the Greater London Council had nothing to say about the rest of the country. They did not think that it was shameful to implement the recommendations for London.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure my hon. Friend wishes to be helpful, but perhaps he could make his own points later.
The legislation will include the consequential adjustments that will be necessary in the constituencies that straddle the Greater London boundary. The intention is that the Greater London Council elections—this will certainly meet with the applause of all authorities in London—to be held in April, 1970, should be for single-member electoral areas co-terminus with the new constituencies. I shall expect a vote of thanks at the next meeting of the Greater London Council.
There is a real problem in constituencies which have grown enormously in recent years, and where an element of


under representation can result in heavy burdens falling upon the Member. The Boundary Commission will be asked to make recommendations for dividing these abnormally large constituencies outside London. The solution, which I shall propose to the House in legislation, is as follows.
There are four pairs of adjacent constituencies with over 90,000 electors. The Government propose that these twin constituencies should be treated as a whole and that the new areas should be divided into three new constituencies. The constituencies are Billericay and South-East Essex, which are adjacent; Portsmouth, Langstone, and Gosport and Fareham, which are adjacent; Hitchin and South Bedfordshire, which are adjacent; and Horsham, and Arundel and Shoreham, which are adjacent. This would give three Members instead of two and an electoral quotient of roughly 65,000 to 75,000 for each constituency. The Bill will also ask the Commission to divide the remaining one constituency, Cheadle, with over 100,000 electors, into two.
I acknowledge the great interest in the House, personal and otherwise, in these proposals. For the convenience of hon. Members I have arranged that when I sit down notes will be available in the Vote Office setting out these proposed divisions of constituencies and the proposed changes in the constituencies which straddle the Greater London boundaries. The proposals will, of course, be contained in detail in the Bill which I propose to publish tomorrow.
Apart from these changes—[Interruption.] If the Opposition had had a full day on this matter, or had waited for a week to see the effect of the proposals, there would not be so many interruptions now.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way any more. The debate finishes at 7 o'clock this evening, by arrangement with the Opposition.
Apart from these changes—in London and the biggest constituencies—the legislation will provide that no proceedings should be taken on the current reports of the Boundary Commissions for

England and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman opposite need not fear. No boundaries will be changed except by Statute. Mr. Gerry Mander can continue to sleep quietly in his grave. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The Boundary Commission will fix the boundaries and will be asked to make a further general review as soon as it is clear that the prospect of local government reorganisation will not make it premature. By this means we shall, by one operation instead of two, redraw in a major sense the political map of this country. Therefore, the Labour Party will not, as the right hon. Gentleman fears, be administrator, judge and jury. It will be for Parliament and the Boundary Commission to carry out the job between them.
The Bill will not attempt to make any changes in abnormally small constituencies because they are not amenable to this kind of treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I regard over-representation as far worse than under-representation in these cases. There will still remain some constituencies with electorates very much smaller than others. But this will always be so. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for St. Marylebone is so busy laughing at his own jokes that he has not had time to see what will be the effect of the Boundary Commission's proposals. Therefore, I draw to his attention some examples after the Boundary Commission—upon which all our hopes are pinned—proposals have been implemented. Will there be "One vote, one value" then?
The right hon. and learned Member ought to look at this matter. I will give him an example before he rises to his feet.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No. Even the Boundary Commission after its radical reorganisation of 410 constituencies—it has recommended, as I have said, the biggest upheaval in the political map—has recommended constituencies which are close to each other geographically but would have very different electorates.
The new Sidcup will have 43,000 electors; the new Paddington, under the Commission's proposals, 73,000 electors;


Northwich, 44,000; Wirral, 76,000; Norwich, North, 40,000; Norfolk, North, 70,000; West Thanet, 38,000; Gravesend, 73,000. If one lives in Ripon the figure will be only 42,000 electors, whereas those who live next door in the Don Valley will have 75,000 electors to elect their member of Parliament. Let no one rise to his feet in all purity and say "The Boundary Commission will remove all this".

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that after 70 local inquiries the Boundary Commission carried out its duties, as the Schedule to the Act says, "so far as practicable"? What the Home Secretary is doing is to throw over the Boundary Commission for party advantage.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, since he has said that he has not looked into the party consequences. He has not himself examined the matter and does not know whether there is any party advtange for him or not. Certainly, up to the moment he has not tried to put that view forward. I suggest that he tries to look at the argument on its merits. There are a great many Conservative constituency organisations up and down the country which would not welcome two major upheavals in less than three elections.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: During the Commission's hearings in Bradford I had to listen to a sustained Conservative attack on the Commission's proposals on the basis that they would undermine Bradford's capacity to resurrect itself as an industrial city. In those circumstances, the decision now announced by the Home Secretary must be greeted with acclaim by the Bradford Conservative Association

Mr. Callaghan: I am quite sure, from the representations that I have received, that a number of local parties, both Labour and Conservative, will welcome what I am now proposing. But that is not necessarily the beginning and end of the commission. The plain truth is—this is what Parliament must focus upon—that we now have a date, November 1969, by which we are told that we have to have a major political upheaval, whether or not it is convenient for the constituencies or for the organisation of political life in this country. There

is no reason why Parliament should submit to that if it wishes to change the existing set-up. That is what I am proposing Parliament should do.
My proposals have one further small advantage over the Boundary Commissions' proposals. The Commissions' proposals would have increased the total number of constituencies from 630 to 635. Under the Government's proposals, there will be no more than 626 seats—only one above the target in the redistribution rules and four less than at present. I believe that that is a small but necessary and worthwhile advantage.

Mr. Stan Newens: In expounding his proposals, my right hon. Friend referred to four sets of constituencies with over 100,000 electors. He then spoke of "the one remaining" constituency with over 100,000 electors, namely, Cheadle. He did not refer to the Epping constituency, which also has over 100,000 electors. Would he be good enough to explain whether it is proposed merely to cut off the bottom end in concert with the Greater London pro posals, or whether any other redistribution is proposed?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend can be sure that the point has been taken into account. Epping in some ways falls into the G.L.C., but the parts of Epping and Chigwell lying outside Greater London would form separate constituencies. After I sit down, if my hon. Friend goes to the Vote Office he will be able to pick up the short notes which I have prepared in anticipation of the Bill and which indicate how the division will take place.
The Bill proposes to deal with Scotland and Northern Ireland. in another way. In these parts of the United Kingdom, it would be dangerous to assume that the reports of the Boundary Commissions will not shortly be overtaken by substantial changes in local government reorganisation in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland and proposals by the Government of Northern Ireland. We should give ourselves a chance to see whether that will be so.
The legislation which I shall put before Parliament tomorrow will enable a decision as to whether effect is to be


given to the current Boundary Commission Reports in these parts of the United Kingdom to be postponed until the implications of the proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland and Northern Ireland can be assessed.
The Bill containing the provisions that I have outlined will be published tomorrow, and it is the Government's intention to ask Parliament to pass it before the recess. I believe that that is the most sensible and workmanlike way of dealing with a problem which will be of very great significance to our people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who seem to be so excited about it must have some reasons for it. I cannot imagine that they believe that the Boundary Commission is so overwhelming in its reasoning and philosophy that in no circumstances should Parliament be free to consider whether alternative arrangements will fit.
In this case, it is clear that alternative arrangements are best for the constituencies and for Parliament. Therefore, that is the way in which we propose to deal with the situation, and I ask the House to reject the Motion.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It is only fair to the Home Secretary to say at once that his manner when making his speech showed that he knew very well that he was doing something for which this House and democratic institutions in the country will never forgive him. Many years ago Parliament in its wisdom put this sentitive matter of the redistribution of parliamentary seats into the hands of an independent commission. It did so because experience throughout the world has shown that all Governments, if left to regulate these matters for themselves, are tempted to rig the arrangement of constituency boundaries in their interests. Because that danger is so manifest, our predecessors in the 1940s took great care to protect the Government of the day from that temptation and that charge.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, at a moment when the right hon. Gentleman is already under a statutory duty to make the Order operating, with or without modifications, the recommendations which the Boundary

Commission has been making over these years, he says that he does not propose to do it, although now and until such Measure as he brings forward passes both Houses of Parliament he is under a legal duty to do it.
Far worse than that deliberate defiance of the law by the Minister of all Ministers who is under a special duty, in view of his responsibilities for a scrupulous observance of the law, the right hon. Gentleman is also seeking to destroy the safeguard of leaving these matters to an independent commission which Parliament has laid down. He is taking into his own hands what is to be done, whether one outside London is to be affected. He goes further. He is picking out individual constituencies, which he has named, in which in his own unfettered judgment and without consultation with other parties he will make those changes which he thinks fit.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is wrong. He knows that it is not only a breach of the current law, but is something which goes against the whole spirit in which a Parliamentary democracy can be expected to function. He is doing precisely what has been done in certain other countries and which has led to the collapse of Parliamentary democracy. Goodness knows, Parliamentary democracy is not all that widely respected in the country today. Once it becomes known that a Government—in this case a dying Government—can use their temporary remaining authority to bulldoze through Parliament those changes in constituency boundaries which suit them, does not the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) does not give way, he must remain seated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will show the right hon. Gentleman greater courtesy that he showed my right hon. and hon. Friends. I will give way to him.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has no warrant for saying that I am proposing to make only those changes which will affect beneficially the Labour Party. He said that I was rigging this. He cannot demonstrate that. If it were so, I presume that he would have difficulty in accounting for the reason I am proposing to do what I have told the Greater London Council. How does he account for that?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. Gentleman understood what I was saying. I was saying that he was taking a step which, in his judgment, he thinks right, but which deprives him as well as Parliament of the protection of knowing that what is done is done on the recommendation of an impartial commission. He is taking the step which in his judgment, right or wrong, he wants to take. He is taking it without consultation and without advice, solely on his own unchecked discretion.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that is precisely what has discredited Parliamentary democracy in other countries. He has announced a step which will damage it even in this country where it began. The right hon. Gentleman was once known as the Chancellor of the Exchequer who devalued the £. Today he has done something worse. He has devalued Parliament.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I wish to say a few words on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) and myself. I begin by repudiating utterly everything that has been said by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and paying warm tribute to the manner and tone and substance of my right hon. Friend's speech this afternoon.
I want to examine the proposals of the Boundary Commission regarding the Derby seats. They really have no rhyme or reason. On page 28 of its Second Periodical Report, the Commission says that the theoretical entitlement for Derbyshire per constituency is 58,750 electors. The present electorate of the three constituencies in Derby are to the nearest thousand: Derby, North 54,000; Derby, South

52,000; and Derbyshire, South-East 72,000. Certainly, Derbyshire, South-East is 14,000 above the theoretical quota, Derby, North is 4,000 below the theoretical quota and Derby, South is 6,000 below the theoretical quota.
But what does the Boundary Commission propose? It proposes that Derby, North should become 74,000, that Derby, South should become 72,000, and that Derbyshire, South-East should become 47,000. Derby, North would then be 16,000 above the theoretical quota, Derby, South would be 14,000 above and Derbyshire, South-East would be 11,700 below. There is really no rhyme or reason in such a proposal, which distorts the principle of "one man, one vote" far more than the present distribution.
Why was it put forward? For one reason only. Because last year the boundary of the Derby County Borough was extended. I hope very soon that Derby will become what it shouuld be by its history and its present importance—a city of this noble land. That borough boundary extension was the reason why the commission's proposal was put forward. But now we have the Redcliffe-Maud Report. If we make this major and absurd redistribution in Derby, within a short time it may all have to be done again.
I end by warmly endorsing what the Home Secretary said about the grave inconvenience caused to constituencies by frequent boundary changes. We have suffered such inconvenience in Derby. I will not weary the House with the details. In 1945, Derby was a two-Member constituency. Since then, various changes have been made and grave inconvenience has been caused. I warmly applaud the Home Secretary for avoiding the further grave inconvenience which would be caused in our area if the Boundary Commission's proposals were now carried out.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I should like to say a few words to the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber.
I listened with great interest to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)


said in opening the debate, setting forth quite clearly the legal position and the consequences for the Home Secretary.
I think that I may be thought to be a reasonably mature politician, also. It is certainly the belief of most hon. Members that the Government had every intention of avoiding their legal obligations on this occasion. The admirably short speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was a genuine and spontaneous expression of disgust—

Mr. Callaghan: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman on this moral tack for 25 years.

Mr. Noble: I am deeply sorry that the Home Secretary, if he has listened to my right hon. Friend "on this moral tack" as he calls it, should today have so much degraded his office as totally to ignore it, once again.
I know that what happens in Scotland is outside the Home Secretary's province. I understand that England is to be told what is to happen, but not a word has been said about what is to happen in Scotland. The Home Secretary tells us that in his view the new local government changes are likely to take place in England sooner than was thought. Perhaps he is right, but this is entirely hypothetical.
I can speak only of what I know in Scotland. We are already nearly a year late in getting our report from Lord Wheatley. Over a year ago a spokesman for the Scottish Office said in another place that it was exceedingly unlikely that the Wheatley Committee's report would be able to be put into operation before the middle 1970s.
I am very surprised if the Home Secretary is suggesting to the House that the even greater and more complicated changes in England are likely to be put into operation in the next two to three years, because that was the impression that he tried to give.
It seems to me that Scotland has a less acute problem than there is in England, because we have only two small seats, one of about 18,000 and the other of about 20,000, and we have only two large seats, one of about 86,000 and the other of about 77,000, taking them to round

thousands. But the position is just as serious in Scotland.
When the Boundary Commission looks at the problems and makes its decisions, we expect the Secretary of State for Scotland, as we expect the Home Secretary, to lay them before the House and to lay the draft Orders in Council as well. I regret that this has not been done for Scotland. I regret that the Home Secretary could not give us any information about what is to happen in Scotland, because it means that we cannot consider it. I dare say that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to say something later in the debate, but that means that we cannot debate it in the least.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about the provisions in the Bill for Scotland.

Mr. Noble: I tried to listen. There was a good deal of noise when the Home Secretary was talking about it.

Mr. Callaghan: I was not shouting myself down.

Mr. Noble: It certainly was not very clear to me what the intentions were for Scotland, though I understood they were put in a different form from whatever was being done in England, and the Home Secretary said that something different was being done in Northern Ireland. We must wait to hear more about it in due course.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): As the Home Secretary made clear, the decision about Scotland is deferred. Therefore, I will be relieved in the Bill of the obligation to lay an order now. When we know the outlines of the Wheatley report, we will be able to make a decision about Scotland.

Mr. Noble: That may be so. It merely puts the Secretary of State for Scotland, like the Home Secretary, outside the law and draws attention to the fact that we are already tremendously late in getting any information from Lord Wheatley. The Secretary of State for Scotland also knows that it was he who stopped the consideration of local government changes in Scotland for about 18 months as soon as he came into office. We have


an extra delay there due to the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not wish to keep the House further. I am disgusted, but not as surprised as some hon. Members may be, that the Government are taking this action. I saw a report in a newspaper that at a Labour Party meeting an hon. Member was greeted with laughter for shouting, "What a fiddler". I gather that on that occasion the Prime Minister was the target. Today, we have another one.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I have listened to the Conservative Party during the four and a half years that I have been in this House, and there is nobody quite so adept at concealing electoral motives in a constitutional argument as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). We heard from him a speech which was intemperate in its tone, and unjustified in its effects.
This debate is not about a high-flown constitutional principle, but about one thing, and one thing only. Let us be realistic. It is about votes. Does the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames seriously expect us on this side of the House, or the country outside, to believe that if he and his party thought that the report of the Boundary Commission went against them, rather than, as they apparently think, in their favour, they would favour the implementation of the report? Would the right hon. Gentleman then be screaming for the report to be adopted because of a constitutional principle? I do not believe that he would

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As far as I know my party has always stood on the basis that electoral changes, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, can rightly affect the chances of parties, should be settled by independent outside machinery which is free from those pressures, and that that machinery itself should, wherever possible, be set up by agreement. It is because the Home Secretary has violated that that I attacked him.

Mr. Richard: I accept every word that the right hon. Gentleman says about the principle. All I am saying is that this is not a debate about the Commission's report, but about when it should

be implemented, and what the right hon. Gentleman thinks are the electoral effects.
I want, therefore, to put three principles before the House. I hope that they are principles which one can generally accept as those which ought to guide the Government when they approach the whole difficult problem of electoral boundary reforms.
First, and it is in the rules of the Boundary Commission—and I hope that even the right hon. Gentleman will accept this—it is at least desirable, if at all possible, that the Parliamentary and local government boundaries should coincide. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go that far. Secondly, if we are to have great changes in local government and Parliamentary constituency boundaries it is at least desirable, if at all possible, that those two should coincide. If we can get a coincidence of change that is the best possible solution. Thirdly, if we cannot get a coincidence, or a near-coincidence, of change in local and Parliamentary boundaries, the question then has to be decided on the merits of the argument at the time when the Government have to apply their mind to it. In other words, is it more or less desirable that the full report should be implemented or rather that one set of changes should wait on the other?
Were this not a debate about boundaries and votes, and were this not such a highly political issue, and were the Opposition not approaching it in such a party political way, I am certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite would react differently. I have a considerable regard for the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, but he should rid his mind of the electoral arguments and the idea that the Government are "fiddling" to achieve an electoral advantage. He would then agree that the balance of convenience and the common-sense way of approaching the problem lies in trying to achieve a coincidence of change in both sets of boundaries.
I think one can accept that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals postulate the biggest change in the organisation of local government in England this century. If the House is to be tied to the reorganisation of Parliamentary boundaries in 1969–70, and if Maud is then to come in, and we are to go on within the


next six or seven years to yet another full-scale reorganisation of Parliamentary boundaries so that they can again coincide with the new local authority boundaries, that would be doing a grave disservice to the people whom we are supposed to represent.
When I first came to the House, I represented a constituency which straddled two boroughs. Half of my constituency was in the Metropolitan Borough of Hammersmith, and half in the Metropolitan Borough of Fulham. I therefore have a slight knowledge of the problem of trying to deal with two local authorities. It is not an easy problem. It is very difficult to persuade people in my constituency that they live in Baron's Court. To most people, Baron's Court is a stop on the District Line going west. It is difficult when one is not part of an easily define-able and recognisable local authority to create the sort of identity with one's constituents which Members ought to try to achieve.
Once the reorganisation in London took place, and I then was part of a three-Member constituency which took in the whole of the London Borough of Hammersmith, it was very much easier for me, and, I hope, for my constituents. This coincidence of local authority and Parliamentary boundaries seems to be crucial if, as Members, we are to do the job that we are sent here to do.
Lest I be accused of any base electoral motives, let me make it clear that under this report and my right hon. Friend's proposals my constituency disappears. I hope, therefore, that it can be said that I am trying to approach this with neither an electoral nor a personal motive. The balance of convenience for everybody is overwhelmingly; that the bulk of the proposals should be left over so that we can get that coincidence of change of local authority and Parliamentary boundaries of which I have just spoken.

6.7 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Baron's Court (Mr. Richard) said that this debate was concerned with votes and boundaries. It may be that votes and boundaries constitute a good deal of the letter of the matter with which we are here concerned, but the spirit of the

matter with which we are concerned is something bigger than that. It is the sanctity of the rule of law, and the obligation on Ministers, as on other citizens, to respect it.
This is what has made this afternoon such a sad, and in some respects shameful, occasion, when we are faced with the melancholy, but fortunately rare, spectacle of a Minister seeking to evade his statutory duty, and doing it in circumstances which, at any rate, give colour to the possibility that he is doing it by reason of party advantage
There is a clear, statutory duty placed on the Minister by Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act. It has been read by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and by the Home Secretary, and it is clear that this is not a matter of Ministerial discretion. There is no Ministerial discretion here. It is a clear mandatory duty, and, subject only to modifications, imposes on the Home Secretary an instant duty to give effect to the totality of the Boundary Commission's recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he has no intention of implementing that obligation. He is already in breach, subject to the interpretation of the term "as soon as may be".
The Act gives no latitude to the Home Secretary to pick and choose amongst the commission's recommendations, still less to reject them all. There is a dual duty laid down. First, to lay the report before the House, and that means the whole of it. No power to edit or expurgate is given by the Act. The second duty is to give effect, subject to possible modifications, to individual recommendations in the report, and that means to give effect to all of them. These recommendations, as we see from Sections 2 and 3 of the 1949 Act, are individual recommendations by the commission relating to areas which have been considered by the commission, and which very often have been the subject of public inquiry under the Act.

Mr. Charles Pannell: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he is brief, because we have very little time.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman here confusing


two things? Is he arguing that at the end of the day Parliament has to accept the Boundary Commission's report in its totality? Is there nothing in his mind about the supremacy of Parliament? Does he remember the debate in, I think, 1954, when there were protests on both sides, day and night, because of the attempt of the right hon. Gwilym Lloyd-George to ride roughshod to impose the Boundary Commission's proposals?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The statutory duty is quite clear, and the Minister should comply with it. The Minister is in breach of his statutory duty. He seeks to use the sovereignty of Parliament to override the other great principle, the principle of the rule of law, and give a bogus and retrospective justification to his unconstitutional action.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale): There may be future debates on this subject, so it would be most instructive to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer absolutely clear. Does he argue that Parliament must accept the reports of the Boundary Commission?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: What the Minister has to do is made quite clear in the Act. It is quite clear what the Minister's statutory duty is.
As I explained in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), it is wholly improper, constitutionally and in any other way, for a Minister to be in breach of his statutory duty and then to use a temporary majority in Parliament, of those who have the same party interest in evading the law, to make a retrospective change in his statutory duty. The answer is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing improperly to use his majority in Parliament retrospectively to justify a breach of statutory duty.

Mr. Michael Foot: Then Parliament has no power? Should it hand it over to the Boundary Commission?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is not it at all. The hon. Gentleman's cry is "to hell with the law", and he appears to have infected his right hon. Friend, who is the Minister charged with the duty of safeguarding and maintaining the law and who, most of all, should seek to comply with it.
There is in these Acts a power to modify individual recommendations of the Commission, but there is a duty to give effect to them, subject only to the power to modify. The meaning of "modify" is to make partial changes in something: to alter without radical transformation. The Home Secretary is not here modifying the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. There cannot be any more radical transformation than to eliminate them altogether. This is not modification such as that for which the Act provides, but the extinction and obliteration of the recommendations of the commission to which the Home Secretary is under a statutory obligation to give effect.
The right hon. Gentleman seeks to justify his position as best he may by relying on the rule in regard to local government boundaries, though, when it suits his purpose, he is very quick to break it. He will break it in his Bill tomorrow. He will take two seats side by side in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, and make out of them a third seat cutting across local government boundaries.
It is the fact that it is the Commission which has to follow these rules, subject to the qualifications, and it has done so. It is not for the Home Secretary to inquire into the Commission's compliance with the rules, still less to apply them or alter them himself. To do that, is to run counter to the whole scheme of the law, which is to prevent redistribution becoming the subject of interminable debate, and to avoid its becoming a plaything of party interest.
The Commission has, in fact, had regard to the rules, and has respected them. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Rule 4, which is the rule which requires the local government boundaries to be taken into account as far as is practicable, he will see that it is not mandatory in an unqualified sense. He must look also at Rule 5 of the 1949 Act, which states:
… a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application"—
of rule 4—
if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota …
Here, it is not a case of a single case or a few cases of excessive disparity. There is a whole host of cases


of excessive disparity; of disparities not only excessive but incredible and indefensible; disparities going as far as doubling the electoral quota at one extreme and being only one-third of the quota at the other extreme. The law contemplates a departure from local government boundaries if insistence on them entails such disparities as these. Of course it does.
The Commission has done its duty. It has had regard to local government boundaries at the date when the matter was before it, which is the date which it is obliged to take into account. It has had regard to the boundaries, and to its duty to avoid excessive quotas. The present position makes a nonsense of fair Parliamentary representation. It is necessary to change it in conformity with the law and democratic principles and to give effect to the report and recommendations of the Boundary Commission. From one point of view, and one only, is it thought not desirable, and that is the partisan advantage of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is wholly wrong for that consideration to be taken into account, and for the Home Secretary to avoid his statutory duty and thereby derogate from democratic principle and the standards of administrative conduct which this House is entitled to expect.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is rightly said to be a mature political personality, and I do not deny it, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) must be described as senile, if that word were not to import a diminution of their political astuteness.
Those of us who have known them in the House for some time know full well that both of them retain very well their political astuteness. When they use high-flown phrases and refer to constitutional doctrine in order to attack my right hon. Friend, I begin to suspect, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), that it was not entirely constitutional impropriety that was upsetting them. But when they tell us what are the political

implications of the changes which my right hon. Friend has suggested in the proposals of the Boundary Commission, I should like to know what evidence they have for such suggestions.
I have appeared in a number of inquiries concerning either local government or Parliamentary constituency boundary changes. In almost every case, the fictions were gone through. We talked about the boundaries, and about community of interest, and so on, when every one of us knew that what we were talking about was what the change meant in terms of political effect. In almost every case I have listened to the arguments of the political prophets about what the changes would mean and, in the main, the prophets were proved wrong when the boundary changes were made.
So when people tell me that if these proposals of the commission are implemented now, the Labour Party stands to lose 15 or 20 seats, or six to eight seats, or any such number, I listen with some scepticism, and when I look at their analysis of where the political effects will fall I do not see that they fall entirely outside London.
After all, it is in London that they will lose 11 seats under the commission's proposals, yet it is the London proposals which we propose to implement in full. Both the right hon. and learned Gentlemen have said that these changes are being proposed by the Home Secretary for political advantage. If political advantage was what we desired, we would never have implemented the London proposals, if their prognostications about the results were correct, because in London we may, on their analysis or that of the wildest Conservative prophets, lose some seats.
We simply must come back to the question whether it is right in all the circumstances to make the changes proposed by the Commission or wait. The two right hon. Gentlemen, from their legal background and training, have called in aid the phrase of Professor Dicey about "the rule of law". The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used it in ringing tones in his best oratorical manner, but he also remembered, even in his speech, that Dicey was the greatest exponent of the sovereignty of Parliament.
What we have to ask is this: is Parliament simply to be the tool of the Boundary Commission? Is it simply to say that, because it was decided in 1958 that a certain arbitrary date was to be the final date for proposals, this Parliament now, 11 years later, is to be governed by the wisdom of the Parliament of 1958?
I cannot believe that it is really the proposal of either the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Parliament should behave in this way. Surely it is right for us to exercise a new judgment in new circumstances and see whether it is desirable that we should conform to the date in the present Statute.
I am, therefore, brought back to the argument adduced so ably by my right hon. Friend. If we are to say that we will implement the proposals now, before the end of 1969 and in time for a General Election next year or the year after, we must then go on to accept that, if the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are accepted, or something like them, even within the time span suggested by the Leader of the Opposition—by 1974—there will need to be a further general inquiry almost immediately afterwards, which would have to be implemented within a reasonable time thereafter, say two or three years. Therefore, the major change proposed by the Commission at the moment would be followed, within about seven years, by another wholesale change.
The changes were made in the periods for review by the Boundary Commission in 1958, and it was then decided, in the wisdom of that Parliament, which is now held to fetter our wisdom, that we should move from a period of review of between three and seven years to a period of between 10 and 15 years, because the first period was all together too quick to make radical changes in boundaries, because of the upset on local communities.
Now, what right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite are saying is that three to seven years, or at least seven years, is a right period in which to make not only some changes in the Parliamentary constituencies, but wholesale changes—from 400 now, to an even bigger number, if Redcliffe-Maud is to be brought into the conspectus of Parliamentary constituencies. As my right hon. Friend said, only two seats outside

London remain unchanged by reason of the boundaries proposed by Redcliffe-Maud.
Should we believe that we can, on one occasion, say that the wisdom of the 1958 Parliament is paramount, and, on the other, that its wisdom is suspect? We must exercise our judgment according to the independent facts presented to us 10 years later.

Mr. Keith Speed: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that what matters in redistribution is not Parliament in 1958 or any other time, but the movements of population which, if we take into account the new towns and the rest, are growing, as the hon. Gentleman will discover from Redcliffe-Maud? Whether we reorganise local government or not, we should still need another redistribution by 1978 or 1979. In my constituency, for instance, the population is growing by 400 a week.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman is right. This is one factor which we must consider in our review, but it is not right that 400 seats are growing at the rate of his constituency. If we make a wholesale change, we will not have to make a wholesale change very quickly thereafter. Perhaps some would have to be changed within a reasonable time because they are growing apace, but not the whole mass of urban areas.
Therefore, my argument is the same as the Home Secretary's. The question is: do we need two major upheavals in our Parliamentary constituencies within a period of about seven to 10 years? I do not believe that it is either desirable or right or that our constituents want it. I speak with no interest in this matter for my own political fortunes, because the constituency of York will remain the County Borough of York under the Commission's proposals, under the existing situation, or under, presumably, any proposals to tie in with Redcliffe-Maud. York will be part of a larger community.

Mr. Hogg: There will be a new Member.

Mr. Lyon: I should leave that to my constituents to decide, I think. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I believe, as usual on these matters.
One thing which I have learned from representing this seat is something which


I know will tie in with the experience of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. It is a delight—I speak in a purely Parliamentary way—to represent one county borough, which is expressive of one community with one set of problems, and where the Member is the Member for the whole community.
I look with a certain contempt, sometimes even with pity, upon those who represent only a set of houses from Street A to Street B, which is part of a great urban mass. I should hate—I hope that I never have to—to represent a seat which was only a part of a divided borough—[Interruption] I recognise the interest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) in this matter, but when he represents a community which is one whole viable community he will see what is meant when we talk, in these inquiries and redistributions, about community interest.
It is community interest which should be reflected most in the representations of our constituents in Parliament, and which is the basis of Redeliffe-Maud. It was the whole purpose of redrawing the local government boundaries that we would create larger units, but units which were circumscribed by at least the "go-to-work" area, and in other aspects by the total community interest of the neighbourhood.
If that is within our grasp in seven years—the possibility of redrafting Parliamentary constituencies to fit in with real community boundaries—it is worth waiting that period to do it, and we would not have to make the upheaval which would follow from two major changes within a very limited time.
Without any political axe to grind, any independent person would conclude that the Home Secretary was right in his proposals.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The Home Secretary has done something which I do not think any hon. Member has ever heard a Minister do. Certainly I cannot recall such an occasion. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he is deliberately in breach of the law. He not only admitted it but said that he was right to be in breach of the law; and he is relying on an Act of Indemnity

going through Parliament to relieve him of the consequences.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will get his Act of Indemnity through this House. However, since the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was anxious to emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Parliament still consists of two Houses and that this is just the sort of unconstitutional action, in the form of an Act of Indemnity for a deliberate breach of the law, which another place may seriously consider. Will the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale be upholding the sovereignty of Parliament if the Upper Chamber takes a more serious view of the grave breach of the law to which the Home Secretary has admitted?

Mr. Michael Foot: I will relieve the hon. and learned Gentleman of any anxiety of dubiety by informing him that I have always believed in the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of Parliament in that sense. If the House of Lords were to exercise such a power, I hope that we would have a short, sharp Bill for its total abolition.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Gentleman must be disappointed to know that his excellent work on the previous Measure to reform the House of Lords has had the result of there not being time to alter Dicey in such a way.
The Home Secretary, having acted in such a dangerous way, must be a brave man to admit that he is flouting the law and is relying on an Act of Indemnity which must pass not only this House, in which he has a machine majority, but another place, which used to regard itself—I hope it still does—as the custodian of constitutional propriety. That is what Dicey says, and, since the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has been quoting Dicey so frequently, he must take Dicey in all its aspects.

Mr. Richard: If the hon. and learned Gentleman were right and the other place rejected the Home Secretary's proposals, there would be no redistribution, which is the last thing I thought he wanted.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Being in breach of his statutory duty and not being relieved by an Act of Indemnity would


result in the Home Secretary finding himself in grave peril, of what I am not sure, but, clearly, it would be of something very nasty indeed. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland assumed, in a short intervention, that he had already been relieved of this breach.
The only point of substance in all this is the suggestion from the Home Secretary and some of his supporters that Redcliffe-Maud's proposals will be through by 1974 at the latest. I do not know by what warrant they assume that. The Secretary of State for Social Services, who has just joined us, has had some experience of local government reform and matters connected with boundaries. His political mentor, the late Aneurin Bevan, also had some experience of these matters. These proposals, with beautiful maps and boundaries which look so good, have a habit of ploughing into the sand in a welter of inquiries, discussions and violent protests. If the previous ones did, how much more is this one likely to?
This one arouses two serious matters of opposition. The first is that it comes down absolutely conclusively—I am not saying whether this is right or wrong—in favour of large and efficient units as against small and participatory units of local government. This arouses enormous opposition. The second is that it upsets ancient county boundaries, in particular putting a lot of Yorkshire into the County Palatine of Lancaster. I cannot imagine anything taking longer to go through than this; going through not by 1974 but by 1984.
If the Home Secretary thinks that the Redcliffe-Maud Report is certain to be through by 1974—that is the whole basis for this bit of jiggery-pokery being brought forward today—it is the most flimsy basis for an argument that I have heard. Anybody with experience of local government knows that radical alterations of this sort which, rightly or wrongly, are already provoking enormous opposition, will take very much longer than that, if they ever get through at all.

6.35 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: My right hon and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylehone (Mr. Hogg) began his speech by saying that we wished to ascertain the intentions of the Government. I thought that the

speech of the Home Secretary, and the shameful announcement which he made in it, fully justified my hon. Friends in having chosen this subject for debate at the earliest possible opportunity.
In the relatively short time in which I have to speak I will concentrate on three points. The first is that my hon. Friends take a perfectly simple position on this issue, as we say in the Motion, in that we call
… upon the Secretaries of State … to implement in full, and without further delay, the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.
On several occasions the Home Secretary described November, 1969, as being what he called an artificial date. [Interruption.] He said that the position had arisen artificially. We know why we have the date 1969. It is because the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales and Ulster must report not later than November, 1969, since that date is 15 years after their last reports were submitted in 1954.
My hon. Friends and I are absolutely convinced that this interval of 15 years is long enough and that the time has come when we should have a new Parliamentary redistribution. The right hon. Gentleman described the number of seats, 410 out of 630, which would have major alterations under the proposals of the Boundary Commissions. I am not surprised at that, when one thinks of the movement of population across the country that has taken place during this period. Many constituencies need drastic alteration. It is, therefore, ridiculous for the Home Secretary to try to draw analogies or comparisons with earlier periods.
Anyone who has had responsibility, as I have, for planning a school building programme is aware of the evidence which such a task reveals about large movements of population throughout the country. After all, we have had to make a major alteration in our law about grants for denominational schools because of these large movements of population. There is, therefore, an overwhelming case, after a period of 15 years, for having a major new redistribution.
I could not help being amused when the right hon. Gentleman seemed to call in aid Major Gwilym Lloyd George. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the speech which Major Lloyd George made


in 1954—he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 13th December of that year, col. 1790—he will find that he envisaged 15 years as the absolute maximum time that should elapse before a new distribution; and I am certain that he was right.
Another reason, to which reference has not been made, is the reduction of the voting age and the fact that large numbers of young voters are coming on the register. This tends to widen still further the gaps between some constituencies and others. It was ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to pray on his side the differences between constituencies of 40,000 and 70,000 voters when in, for example, Birmingham we have constituencies of 18,000 and 90,000.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman and others have made the suggestion that we should delay the greater part of these proceedings until after the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. I regard that as the greatest nonsense for a number of reasons.
First, as a number of my hon. Friends have rightly said, it prejudges the issue of what Parliament will do about the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations; this is itself a major issue on which I suspect Parliament will be widely divided. The Boundary Commission, not the Home Secretary, has to take into account local government boundaries. Quite rightly, the Commission must take account of them as they are, since it is not concerned with hypothetical boundaries. The idea that we should put off again the start of its work until after the legislation on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals has been completed is the greatest possible nonsense.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and others have spoken about seven years. We all felt in 1954 that seven years would normally be too short a time. I take the view that 15 years is a fully long enough time. If because of this one particular occasion of the Redcliffe-Maud Report we shall have to have a further redistribution after another seven years, I would not regard that as necessarily disastrous. The imperative at the moment is to have a redistribution, which is highly desirable after 15 years.

Sir Douglas Glover: It would not be seven years because, as

the Home Secretary has said, it has taken the Commission four years already for a start in 1975, and it will be 1980.

Sir E. Boyle: I agree. Like the end of the famous Housman parody, I think I can say
… thine arithmetic is quite correct".
We must certainly implement the present recommendations of the Boundary Commissions now and then consider what we should do about the Redcliffe-Maud Report and wait for that legislation before a further redistribution takes place.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman says that on this occasion he would be prepared to accept as unique a very short period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not very."]—a shorter period, of seven years. Equally, I should be prepared on this occasion to accept a longer period of, say, 20 years. Is that the only difference between us? Is there no issue of principle at all?

Sir E. Boyle: There are two answers to the hon. Member. First, I prefer to follow what the Act now says should be done, and what the Commissioners recommend. Second, and no less important, I believe that after the present period of 15 years—after this interval—the time has come when we must have a further redistribution The evils of waiting 20 years—which, in fact, would be longer—would be very much greater than the risk we should now take of having to have a further redistribution in—I will not say how many years, but between seven and 10 from now. I agree with the view expressed in The Times on this matter, that the best course is to implement these present reports fully and on time, even at the cost, maybe, of some later inconvenience.
My last point is the evil of attempting to implement merely parts of the Boundary Commission's report and not the whole. There are two great objections to this. The first was put extremely well by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when this afternoon he drew attention to the strong objections to changing the rules unilaterally, while the match is actually being played. Of course the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is right in saying that we are not bound by legislation for all time.


Everyone in this House recognised the need for a change after 1954. That is why these reports have not come to us until 1969. But it is quite wrong now to make a further change, unilaterally, while the match is actually being played.
My right hon. and learned Friend was quite right when he said that not only is this legally wrong, but it is also improper. It is retrospective legislation of an improper kind and a political outrage as well. We cannot draw this sharp distinction between a small number of very large constituencies with over 100,000 electors and a number coming up close to 100,000. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) had come into the debate he would have pointed this out forcibly. While it is obviously too early in these debates to go into too much detail, I hope that no one will be too much impressed by what the Home Secretary said about the four pairs of constituencies to be divided into three. This may be an extremely bad answer in certain cases. For instance, the right solution in the part of Essex referred to is not to divide Billericay and South-East Essex into three, but to divide those constituencies plus Chelmsford and Maldon into six. The Boundary Commission recommendation here makes much better sense than the proposal by the right hon. Gentleman.
Looking back over 20 years, we are bound to say that the Government have an extremely unhappy record on electoral boundary changes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have and it is no good for the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) to laugh about it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I think I am entitled to laugh at any charges of gerrymandering. My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) would lose his seat altogether and mine would be put into jeopardy, so I am entitled to laugh at charges by the right hon. Gentleman that this is gerrymandering in my favour.

Sir E. Boyle: That was a not too coherent interjection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was right when he said that the whole question of constituency changes should be made as objective and

free from political influence as possible. We cannot forget what happened in 1948. Four constituencies of 80,000 electors were divided into two by Mr. Chuter Ede specifically without the endorsement of the Boundary Commission. Then we had the unsavoury episode at Northampton, which we debated in the winter of 1964–65. We had the postponement of the London local government elections in 1967, and now we have this wholly unjustifiable refusal to implement the Boundary Commission's report by the right hon. Gentleman.
I have no doubt that we shall have a number of most discordant debates on the legislation which the Home Secretary intends to bring forward. I warn him that we shall resist his proposals by all Parliamentary means.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: If I may have the leave of the House, I shall be glad to comment on some of the points which have been made. I note what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said about fighting these proposals with all the strength at the command of the Opposition, or whatever was the piece of rhetoric he will write into it. The proposals stand on their merits and will be argued on their merits, and supported on their merits.

Sir Knox Cunningham: There are no merits.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) would not join in these debates.

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Ulster seats are being put into cold storage? If so, is the Antrim, South seat, the largest constituency in the whole country of the United Kingdom, with 127,000 electors, to remain at that size?

Mr. Callaghan: The seats in Northern Ireland, as I explained in my original speech, will be considered in the light of the review which is now taking place under the aegis of the Northern Ireland Government in relation to local government changes. It will then be open, under the Bill I shall be putting to the


House tomorrow, for Parliament to decide either that the changes shall go ahead as laid down by the Boundary Commission, or to ask the Commission to make a fresh review because the local government boundaries may have been changed so drastically.
That is the answer to the hon. and learned Member. I was not dealing with that point when I referred to him, but to his well-known habit of making seated allegations of cheating. When he does that I search my Parliamentary vocabulary for an alternative to the word "hypocrite", but as I cannot find one I cannot use it.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with all the synthetic indignation to which we have become accustomed over the last 25 years, combines the air of a bishop with the language of a Billingsgate porter in appropriate measures. I well remember the great reputation he made when, on one of his earlier appearances in the Chamber, he called, and became notorious and well-known for calling, the chairmen of nationalised boards "Quislings".

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will search his memory he will find that he has got it wrong. I referred to people, not on any nationalisation board at that time, who had responsibilities to private industries which they seemed likely to be willing to betray. That is a totally different thing. I would be grateful to have the right hon. Gentleman's withdrawal of what he said.

Mr. Callaghan: I was present in the House when the right hon. Gentleman said it and I can tell him that the impression left on hon. Members and on me especially was that he thought people who vote Tory and support the Tory Party should not serve on the boards of nationalised industries. That was what he wanted to say and what he said. I know that he has been ashamed of it ever since, but he cannot wriggle out of it after 20 years.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he is speaking for a second time with the leave of the House. Will he accept from me that I was personally responsible for this side not objecting to his doing so. I regret my decision.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry if I am stinging the right hon. and learned Gentleman into his accustomed lack of courtesy when he is outside the House, although when he is inside it he is one of the most courteous of Members with whom we have to deal.
Frankly, there has been little serious argument to answer. There has been a great deal of personal abuse; and if we are to declare an interest let me declare mine. I understand that if we were to proceed with the Boundary Commission's proposals my seat would become very much safer, so at least I am not gerrymandering against myself whatever else may be alleged.
There has been little serious argument but a lot of denunciation, a lot of cheap prose, and party propaganda. With such serious argument as there has been I shall be happy to deal. It was because there was so little that I asked for only 10 minutes in which to wind up the debate. If I were to make a serious contribution by trying to get some chaff out of the wheat I have had to deal with, I could be up for two hours.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that before the Boundary Commission made its report affecting my constituency, South-East Essex, there were opportunities for local interests to make representations and this was done by them twice. This afternoon, quite arbitrarily, the right hon. Gentleman has announced quite different proposals affecting my constituency. Can he give an assurance that due time and opportunity will be given to local interests—and I am not talking about myself; this is something touching on the representation of people in my constituency—to make representations to the Boundary Commission, as was done before?

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition as a whole had not been so impatient and will await the Bill tomorrow they will have the answers to these and many other questions. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman contains his soul in patience for rather less than 24 hours and he will see what the answers are.
Clearly, this is not retrospective legislation. Changes have not taken place. Boundaries exist and there is nothing


retrospective about what is proposed in the Bill that I shall be introducing; and there is absolutely no case for suggesting that there is.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) got into a great deal of difficulty and stumbled in a most unaccustomed way when he was asked a direct question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) namely, did he argue that Parliament must accept the reports of the Boundary Commission? The right hon. and learned Gentle-had three opportunities to answer the question, but failed to do so. I propose to answer it for him. What I thought he said, though my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale may have a different impression, was that the answer was "Yes"; that Parliament is not supreme and that we must automatically accept the verdict of the Boundary Commission no matter what may come.
We can have an interesting constitutional argument—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: One of two things is true. Either the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that Parliament can alter it, or he believes that Parliament cannot alter it. That is susceptible of a simple answer, yes or no. If he wishes to give an answer now I will gladly give way. Does he believe Parliament has the right to modify and alter Boundary Commission proposals or not?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Parliament is able, by proper process, to pass any form of legislation. Meanwhile, as I made quite clear, the right hon. Gentleman, as Home Secretary, is in breach of his statutory duty. It will be a monstrous constitutional impropriety if he uses his temporary majority in the House to secure an Act of indemnity in that way for his breach of duty.

Mr. Callaghan: What is wrong with using the majority? It is an odd dogma that we cannot use it to make changes.
I want to come to the question whether it was ever intended, though or believed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be arguing, though he now seems to be retreating from the doctrine, that in no circumstances can we alter the recommendation of the Boundary Commission.

In 1944, there was a Coalition Government. It was headed by Sir Winston Churchill, who was then Leader of the Conservative Party. It had as its Lord President of the Council Sir John Anderson. The Home Secretary of the day was Mr. Herbert Morrison.
They were discussing the Redistribution of Seats Bill. Let us see what was the intention of both parties represented in one Coalition Government through the voice of the Home Secretary of 1944. This is what Mr. Morrison had to say at that time—never mind what Dicey says:
These recommendations"—
the recommendations of the Boundary Commission—
will not, of course, be binding upon Ministers.
That is clear enough.
It will be competent for Ministers to accept or reject or amend the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, subject always to two points, first, that they will have to explain the reasons for their decision, and, secondly, that Parliament must at all times be supreme in the matter."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1613.]
That is a complete answer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity later—

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Act of 1944 was different from the law now in that the Minister was not bound under that Act to present a draft Order with his report?

Mr. Callaghan: That makes no difference to the fundamental issue, which is whether Parliament is to be supreme in this matter.
The Coalition Government, under Sir Winston Churchill, gave a clear and complete answer to that question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, despite his synthetic rage this afternoon, was taking a rather different line on the Children's Bill only a week ago. He needs a longer memory. These were his words during the Third Reading late at night, or early in the morning, when asking the House not to go ahead with the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pleaded with us not to proceed with the Bill, and not to put these changes into operation because he said:
I am convinced that when it is implemented in its more extensive form its provisions as it stands will prove to be wrong in


the light of the changes in local government which are shortly to be made …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1969; Vol. 784, c. 1189.]
That was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude then. This afternoon, for party reasons, he has swung right round. We know why. We repudiate it and we intend to go ahead with this Measure.

Mr. Speed: rose—

Mr. Francis Pym: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—
That this House calls upon the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and Scotland to implement in full, and without further delay, the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 270.

Division No. 277.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Astor, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, M.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n' &amp; M'd'n)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Awdry, Daniel
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bell, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grieve, Percy
Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nott, John


Bryan, Paul
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Heseltine, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr-Ewing, Sr Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Chataway, Christopher
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Francis


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Currie, C. B. H.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Frederick


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith




Stodart, Anthony
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Waddington, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis
Wright, Esmond


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, N. R.


Temple, John M.
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hn. George


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Tilney, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Turton, Bt. Hn. R. H.
Wiggin, A. W.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Donald (Dudey)
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, John
Lawson, George


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, John (Reading)


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Foley, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander w. (York)


Barnett, Joel
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, C.)


Baxter, William
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gardner, Tony
McCann, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James


Binns, John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Macdonald, A. H.


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McGuire, Michael


Blackburn, F.
Gregory, Arnold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackie, John


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.


Boston, Terence

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bradley, Tom
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David



Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Haseldine, Norman
Mayhew, Christopher


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mikardo, Ian


Cant, R. B.
Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Conlan, Bernard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Neal, Harold


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stan


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, George (Goole)
Oram, Albert E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice


Dell, Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.


Dobson, Ray
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Park, Trevor


Dunnett, Jack
Kenyon, Clifford
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pavitt, Laurence


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)







Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Ryan, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne valley)


Pentland, Norman
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Sheldon, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wallace, George


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Price, William (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Probert, Arthur
Slater, Joseph
Whitaker, Ben


Randall, Harry
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rees, Merlyn
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Richard, Ivor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Rt. Hn, Goronwy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Winn'ck, David


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roebuck, Roy
Tomney, Frank



Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rose, Paul
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Neil McBride and


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Mr. Speaker: May I try to advise the House? I have not selected the Amendment to the Motion for consideration in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who wants the Bill to be considered upon this day six months.
I have studied all the other Amendments on the Order Paper. It seems to me that they are all linked with the question of walkways, and I suggest that we might discuss with the first one to be called, in Clause 2, page 2, leave out line 28, the remaining five as follows:
In page 6, leave out Part III (Walkways).
In Clause 15, page 15, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
In Clause 30, page 30, leave out lines 17 to 23.
In page 41, leave out Schedule 1.
In the Preamble, leave out paragraphs (2) and (3).
I shall call the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) to move the first one, and then we shall have a debate on all the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), and by the narrower Amendment on the same topic in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. I hope that that is satisfactory to the House.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to call a Division on my Amendment in Clause 15, page 15, line 18?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Chairman of Ways and Means would consent to a Division on that Amendment.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Sydney Irving): Yes, Sir.

Clause 2

DIVISION OF ACT INTO PARTS

7.13 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 2, leave out line 28.
I should not have wished to detain the House, although this is a somewhat complex issue, had it not seemed to me that Part III, which introduces the concept of walkways, both raises an important question of principle and introduces practical difficulties which I believe to be unnecessary. I am not sure whether my concern in these matters amounts to an interest which I ought to declare, but I prefer to be on the safe side. I inform the House that I hold the wholly honorary office of president of the Water Companies Association, the members of which are statutory undertakers vitally interested in the matters which I wish to discuss. They are interested, also, with other members of the British Waterworks Association and the gas and electricity industries as well. They are, in my view, rightly concerned because they feel that their legitimate interests as statutory undertakers, with, as a


corollary, statutory duties to perform, may be seriously prejudiced by Part III.
As the House knows, statutory undertakers rely on rights conferred upon them by a number of statutes to use the public streets and highways as the basis of their distribution network. Obviously, that background has considerable advantages for the statutory undertakers and for those who take supplies, since the street pattern by its nature gives ready access to the individual premises which they are required to supply. It provides the means by which alternative routes can be arranged so as to ensure a reliable service. It provides means by which the system can, as time demands, be expanded. Further, the streets themselves provide means of access for vehicles and men for maintenance purposes.
Unlike streets, the walkways with which we are here concerned are not public highways in law. Further, in so far as they are constructed above ground level—often on the sides of buildings or even through buildings—they may even physically be wholly inappropriate for the carriage beneath them of the various services to the extent that they are main distributive systems rather than purely points of supply to the premises bordering the particular part of the walkway. Indeed, they may have to be specifically designed if it is necessary to carry the heavier supply mains—I am thinking mostly in this context of gas and water—which might be necessary if they entirely replaced streets in this function.
However, these walkways, when constructed, may well prove to be the only reasonably convenient routes for such services. Since the pattern of walkways and the pedestrian precincts which go with them is likely in a great many areas considerably to reduce the number of traditional streets, the alternative route available to the statutory undertaker may in some instances prove to be very circuitous and, therefore, much more expensive than the more direct route which would be possible along the walkways.
All this has been recognised, though a little belatedly, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which has as a result produced a Report from the Minister's Advisory Group on the subject. I say "belatedly" because walkways and pedestrian precincts are an inevitable

corollary of the whole philosophy underlying the Buchanan Report, which has been available to the Ministry for five years and more. It is a little lacking in assiduity on the Ministry's part to be so long in studying this problem, which is a problem for the general law and not for the private law such as we have in the bill.
However that may be, we now have the Advisory Group's Report available, but it is only fair to the promoters to add that it was not available when the Bill was presented, let alone when it was prepared and finally printed.
There is in the Bill no adequate provision either for the installation of the statutory undertakers' apparatus, or for its protection or maintenance if by agreement with the owners of the walkways such installations are put in. We are here dealing with a species of public right of way which will traverse private property. Therefore, in the absence of statutory powers, the statutory undertakers will be thrown back on the possibilities of reaching such agreement as they can. This is my concern and that of the various statutory undertakers which I have mentioned.
I do not want gratuitously to quarrel with the G.L.C., but I cannot accept that the mere fact that the Report of the Minister's Advisory Group was not available at the time the Bill was presented entirely excuses the omissions from the Bill. Even if the statutory undertakers themselves had remained entirely silent and made no representations to bring their anxiety to the notice of the promoters of the Bill, which was not the case, and even if the problem had not already arisen in other Private Bills, which it has, it is surely rather obvious that such provisions as those to which I am referring would be necessary in a Bill introducing a whole new code of law governing walkways. I do not regard this as a highly responsible way for the largest single local administrative unit in the country to present the Bill, particularly when it is recognised that the Bill itself provides special powers for the G.L.C. or the boroughs to ensure that the walkways are regularly cleansed. That, one would have thought, required water; but there is no provision for the supply of water. So it is not only a little negligent but, one would have thought, a little short sighted.
However, we have this report. It may be useful if I quote from it. After outlining the background, to which I have already referred, the report in paragraph 4 of appendix 3, points out:
Though such developments make it more difficult for undertakers to build up networks, they do not reduce the demands for public utility services. … It is therefore essential that new developments of this kind should provide adequately for statutory undertakers' works.
It is the basis of my complaint that the Bill does no such thing.
Paragraph 5 says:
It would be wrong if the cost of providing the interconnections and other works needed to provide secure supply systems were forced up by a need to follow circuitous routes, and it will be impracticable as well as unreasonable to expect undertakers to overcome such difficulties by the use on a large scale of compulsory purchase powers which allow them to obtain wayleaves across privately owned land. There could well be circumstances in which the shortest, most logical, and technically most satisfactory route for these services was via a walkway. In the ordinary course, therefore, statutory undertakers would expect to have access to the new type of structure.
Paragraph 6 lists certain features of walkways which may, in certain circumstances, make them unsuitable for carrying the mains installation. They are the fairly obvious ones that some of the structures will be relatively light, some of them will be designed in such a way that it will be unsightly to attach large pipes to them, and so on.
Paragraph 8, having taken all that into account, goes on to say:
Statutory undertakers cannot, however, depend solely on negotiation in discharging their statutory responsibilities. Powers are needed to back up their standing in the matter. They could not rely solely on good will and it would be expensive of resources, and in come cases impracticable to adopt a circuitous route in the event of disagreement.
Paragraph 10 says:
As regards the installation of apparatus in elevated walkways:
(a) provision of apparatus by statutory undertakers for local services to individual buildings is unlikely to present problems
because of the mutuality of interests.
(b) The need to provide accommodation for major or trunk through services will not arise ….
I will read sub-paragraph (c) in full:
Provision of apparatus for statutory undertakers as part of the co-ordinated and interconnected supply network to serve the

area where there is no access by a normal pattern of streets does, however, present problems. Here we see a case for permitting the installation of apparatus subject to certain provisos.
A note at the bottom says:
There is a further consideration. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the requirements of future multi-level development may call for both connection and supporting networks for supplies at more than one level.
It is clear that the Ministry recognises the problem. It sets it out in the Appendix remarkably clearly and succinctly and goes on to say in paragraph 12:
We consider that such rights should be exercisable in the same way as those specified in Section 6 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950 (that is, the statutory undertaker must give the walkway authority due notice and details of the works which he proposes to execute …) Similar arrangements should apply in respect of the apparatus for unsupported walkways on solid ground.
Paragraph 13 says:
We have also considered who should meet the cost of removal or replacement of apparatus consequent on demolition or redevelopment of the supporting building incorporating part of a walkway …
(14) Provisions of the Act place the responbility for meeting the cost of removal and reinstatement of any apparatus installed in streets in the local authority. By analogy a similar solution should apply when the route of a walkway (whether on or above solid ground) is altered by the walkway authority.
Again, there are no such provisions in the Bill.
The Advisory Group's Report goes on to suggest a fairly complete code of conduct for this state of affairs, but it would be unfair to bore the House by reading further from the report. Hon. Members who are interested will find the report worth reading. I certainly suggest to the promoters of the Bill that it is a pity that they did not read it earlier.
It is, therefore, clear that there is a need for special and appropriate provisions in a Bill of this sort in the interests of the statutory undertakers. After all, it tends to be forgotten that this is also in very large measure in the interests of the public which they serve, because if the costs of the statutory undertakers are to be increased they, as we all know, are ultimately paid by the consumer.
This view is clearly shared by the Ministry and underlined by the Minister's Report to Parliament on the Bill when


it was introduced. It is worth bringing this to the attention of the House:
The next step will be to discuss with appropriate bodies, including those representative of local authorities, the form of general legislation on the subject.
That means on the subject of walkways.
Whilst the Minister would prefer local authorities to wait for such general legislation, he nevertheless accepts there may be a case for immediate powers to be granted in some cases. Accordingly, he suggested to the promoters that either this part of the Bill should be withdrawn for further consideration in the light of the Advisory Group's report, or that their proposals should be amended, as necessary, to conform with the recommendations made in that Report.
In the Minister's view, this Part of the Bill in the form as deposited"—
it is still in substantially the same form—
should not be allowed unless the Committee are satisfied that the promotor's requirements are so urgent that this Part of the Bill cannot be withdrawn for further consideration.
The Minister understands, however, that the promotors will seek leave to introduce a number of amendments to conform generally with the Group's recommendations in respect of the acquisition of, and compensation for, walkway rights, the permanence of walkways; and statutory undertakers. The Minister would not wish to oppose this Part of the Bill as so amended.
The Amendments remain to be inserted.
7.30 p.m.
I appreciate that the promoters' difficulties in amending the Bill have not been entirely their fault. I suppose that as the Bill is still here we must presume that the Committee was at any rate prima facie satisfied that there was a degree of urgency. It is relevant to remind the House that since particular objectors withdrew their petition the Bill went through the unopposed Parliamentary Private Bill procedure and the statements on behalf of the G.L.C. as to urgency could not be challenged There is a difficulty in amending the Bill because of the rule of this House that we cannot increase the scope of the Bill by adding to the burdens it imposes on private people.
This is a sound and salutary rule, based on the need to ensure that people whose rights are affected should know and have an opportunity to protest and should not be caught unawares by increasing the burdens during the course of the Bill through Parliament. We have to admit that all the statutory provisions which the statutory undertakers would wish to see

could not have been put in without increasing the burden on the private land owners over whose property, or through whose property, these walkways are likely to be constructed.
I appreciate that any attempt to increase the powers over private property would probably have increased opposition to the Bill. It is relevant to remember that although the G.L.C. tells us that this will all be put right by a Bill being introduced next year because this is an annual event, there is no reason to believe that these proposals will not be opposed then as they have been now. No local authority is in a position to guarantee that it can put a Bill through Parliament with these precise provisions. Since there is objection, we must have graver doubts than would otherwise be the case.
I realise that this is the whole basis of the dilemma in which the statutory undertakers find themselves. We cannot have a guarantee that these safeguards will be inserted at any time, nor can there be any guarantee that in the meanwhile works will not be carried out which may seriously prejudice the interests of one or other or all of the statutory undertakers concerned. There is a perfectly feasible way out, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give me a simple assurance, in which case we can all go home much earlier and in a much better temper than might otherwise be the case. There are two steps that ought to be taken. The first concerns the G.L.C. All that is required is a provision in the Bill, either in the form of a proviso to one or more Clauses or in the form of a new Clause, taking the form of an undertaking that the G.L.C. will not declare any footpath or whatever as a walkway or in other ways set up a walkway unless it has, as a result of consultations with the statutory undertakers concerned, received assurances that they are in agreement; or in the absence of agreement, that they have accepted the decision of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the case of water, and the Minister of Power in the case of electricity and gas.
This seems to be a perfectly easy thing to do, and I am advised that it would not contravene any of the rules of this House, because it would be cutting down the powers of the promoters without in any way increasing the burdens on private


property. If this was incoporated in the Bill—precisely what the G.L.C. is promising to do in a year's time—it would meet the requirements of everyone. It is something which it would be wholly inequitable even to consider rejecting.
My second and even more fundamental suggestion has to do with the fact that we would all agree that this is basically a matter for public general law and not for a private Act. The Ministry has produced this report, and reading through it quickly I am not sure that I would agree with every line. It is subject to consultation with the various statutory undertakers or other associations. Surely now is the time for the Ministry to come forward and produce a public general Act of Parliament which will cover this problem because it is becoming of wider and wider significance. There have been five Bills in this Session—three have been withdrawn for various reasons—which contain provisions on the lines of Part III. This will be more and more common, and it is clearly a matter for general legislation.
Now that the Government have relieved themselves of certain undertakings in the industrial sphere and have the permission of the T.U.C. to proceed, they will have plenty of time to introduce such a Bill. It is their duty to do so, and I hope that they will give an undertaking that no further time will be lost before they measure up to their responsibilities and set the example which appears to be required from the G.L.C.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For technical reasons the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has moved the Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, leave out line 28.
May I add that if this Amendment were carried I would put later the other Amendments in the name of the hon. Gentleman. If this Amendment were, at the end of the general discussion, withdrawn or defeated I would still put to the House the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for bringing to bear in this debate, on a Bill promoted by a

London authority, his experience as a former Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. May I say how much I share with him his concern about the manner in which the promoters have conducted the passage of the Bill? The hon. Member has highlighted a number of problems and has dealt with the effect on public utility undertakings.
I want to deal with the possible effect of the walkway provisions upon the general public. It is a matter of regret that the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association have not seen fit to remove from the Bill Clause 15(4) dealing with pavings and certain other consequential matters. On Second Reading I gave a fair indication of my concern and made it clear to the promoters that if they did not consider the removal of this subsection it was likely that it would be necessary to object further to the Bill's passage. In the light of this, I hope it will not be claimed that my opposition to the Bill, in tabling Amendments, and in other ways, stems from a desire to be obstructive or unreasonable. My objections are of great substance.
Since I started making my objection, the Greater London Council has corresponded with me. I received a letter from it recently which is undated, but it bears the reference LP/P/HWF, if the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wishes to find it in his file. The first paragraph of that letter sums of the reasons of the Greater London Council and the London Borough's Association for not being able to withdraw subsection (4):
I duly received your letter of 24 May, which I referred to the London Boroughs Association. The Association's Honorary Parliamentary Officer has now informed me that they cannot see any justification for there to be a higher, or lower, standard of liability on a walkway authority than at present exists on a highway authority by virtue of section 1 of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961, which is the basis of subclause (4) of Clause 15 of the Bill.
That paragraph sets out the basis of the reasoning of the promoters of the Bill for including subsection (4) of Clause 15. I do not accept this reasoning as relevant to the matter.
The 1961 Act was a worth-while and progressive Act reforming the law on highways. It was not intended to apply


to walkways, and, from a careful reading of the debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, I have found that at no time was reference made to walkways.
There need be no confusion between a highway and a walkway, since the Bill makes this clear in Clause 10(2). It is clearly laid out that
… a walkway shall not be, or for the purpose of any enactment or of any rule of law be treated as being, a highway, street or open space.
So the Greater London Council promoters of the Bill were clear that a walkway was in no way related to the definition applied to the 1961 Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961. It was not intended, therefore, that a walkway should be compared with a highway or with any other type of thoroughfare covered by that term. The provision in the 1961 Act was designed for one main purpose and should not be automatically applied for a completely different purpose in a different set of circumstances purely to suit the convenience of local authorities in bringing legislation before Parliament.
Liability for the maintenance of walkways is clearly laid down in Clause 15(1) and (2). It is there stated that a local authority shall not be exempt from liability for the non-repair of the surface of the walkway. The responsibility for the maintenance of walkways remains with the local authority.
Why, then, are the promoters of the Bill attempting to limit the rights of citizens who use walkways by putting limitations on the legal liability for the maintenance of walkways? Will the promoters tell the House the reasons lying behind this? The House of Commons and the citizens of London are entitled to know why the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association seek to limit their liability in this way.
The Bill defines a walkway as:
a way or place on which any person may have access on foot and may pass and repass as of right.
Walkways may be at ground level, above ground or below ground level. Unlike the situation in 1961, when the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was before the House, no walkway can come into existence without a deliberate act

of a local authority in passing a formal resolution dedicating a walkway for public use.
7.45 p.m.
At present no walkways, within the meaning of the Bill, are in existence in the adiministrative area of the Greater London Council, and none can come into existence unless at the express wish of a local authority. We are not dealing with the situation of putting into a proper state of repair a vast existing network of walkways, which would put a physical and financial strain upon public finance, by asking the House to take overnight action to create a legal responsibility for local authorities to bring walkways into a proper state of repair. Yet the Greater London Council, by the insertion of subsection (4), is relying upon provisions which were inserted into an Act of Parliament to provide specifically for that situation in respect of thousands of miles of highways, streets and footpaths where it would have been unreasonable overnight to throw the responsibility upon the local authority.
The 1961 Act was primarily concerned with removing the ancient injustice of the doctrine of non-feasance, which was that the local highway authority could not be held liable in law for non-fulfilment of its statutory duty. That scandalous position was rightly swept away in the 1961 Act. The Greater London Council should not lift from the 1961 Act provisions which were designed for a completely different purpose and apply them to walkways which legally are completely different from highways.

Mr. John Hunt: Before the hon. Gentleman gets indignant about this, may I ask whether he sees significance in the fact that neither the Minister of Transport nor any other Government Department has objected to these provisions?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Housing and Local Government can sneak for themselves. It is often the duty of a Member of this honourable House to speak up where others fail to do so. I am tonight taking that mantle upon myself. I may be presumptuous in so doing, but I speak on behalf of all those people, young and elderly, who may have an


accident upon a walkway created by the Greater London Council or one of the 32 London boroughs and find that, because of the provisions in the Bill, they cannot obtain prover redress in the courts. If some hon. Members do not take seriously the carrying out of their responsibilities, that is no reason why the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and I should follow their example.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: Surely what a court must consider is the state of repair in which a reasonable person would expect to find a walkway. Is that not sufficient safeguard for the pedestrian?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) shows a great interest in these matters and we have had many conversations on this subject. I shall be coming to the point he has raised.
It is clear that there is little comparison between highways and walkways. Highways and walkways vary in character and in location. Some highways are to be found in desolate areas and are used infrequently; others are subject to flooding or erosion by weather and all sorts of other conditions. Walkways are not subject to similar considerations.
The Greater London Council or any London borough under the powers in the Bill surely would not contemplate constructing or dedicating a walkway unless there was a real need, be it practical or recreational, that is clearly established, such as a link with the shops. For example, in a residential area it would be reasonable to have a walkway; indeed, under the Bill a shopping precinct would be a walkway. A walkway might provide access to a residential area or to an open space or there could be a walkway along the Thames to provide views of that great river. But for whatever reason the boroughs decide to dedicate a walkway, it should be based on need and reasonable use by the public. It is essential that this need is considered by local authorities.
The main walkways will tend to be completely new constructions to be handed over by contractors to local authorities in first-class condition, or possibly conversions which will be brought up to a good condition before being handed

over. They will start off in a state of good repair, and it is right that the local authority which dedicates a walkway should have an unfettered and full responsibility to keep up that state of repair. For these reasons I shall seek to delete the subsection.
It can be argued that because the walkways may connect up with a highway or street it is necessary to have a uniform standard under the law to apply to highways and pavements as well as to the walkway. There could be a great variety of combinations of highways, streets and bridle paths, and it might be argued that a common set of laws could cover the whole range of these thoroughfares. No doubt this argument will be put forward by the promoters, but it is not tenable for three main reasons.
First, as I have said, the definitions of "highway" and "walkway" are completely different. Second, the provisions in regard to walkways and highways are entirely different, with a completely different purpose. Third, it should be the aim of public authorities to raise standards rather than lower them. If it is possible in a Bill to ensure that local authorities meet a higher standard of responsibility in relation to people using public facilities, then a higher standard, not a lower standard, should be laid down.
I was asked whether or not it is clear that the situation is covered by Clause 15(4) as to what is reasonable and what a court should take into account. My view is that there should be no limitation, and that one should rely exclusively on subsections (1) and (2) of the Clause. Those subsections provide for the acceptance of full liability and then subsection (4) goes on to limit it.
It is my view—and I hope that it will be the view of the House this evening—that a claim for injury sustained on a walkway should be a matter exclusively for the courts, without any limitation being imposed by the Bill. It is for a court to assess each case on the evidence presented to it by the parties concerned. The court should be under no obligation to take into account defences obtained by a local authority against the interests of its own citizens. It is part of British justice that a court should be unfettered and that each case should be judged upon


its merits within the framework of the general law.
The subsection is distasteful since it seeks to establish for a local authority a limitation of liability, a limitation which often will be used against the best interests of the citizens of local authorities in London. Because it fosters the all too familiar pattern of creating "them" and "us" as between a local authority and its ratepayers, I seek the deletion of a provision which is inappropriate, unnecessary and unjust. I hope that we shall be allowed to divide on this subsection.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I hope that I shall not be out of order if, before I turn to the Bill, I say how sorry I was that the previous debate had to be cut short, especially since I had the experience—a rather salutary one to a Member of Parliament—of listening to an official announcement abolishing my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) mentioned the proceedings which had taken place on the Bill. If I may run through them briefly, the Bill was the subject of a Second Reading debate on 20th February. The Bill was in the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) as the G.L.C.-nominated Parliamentary member, and received a Second Reading on that date.
The Bill was then sent to an Opposed Private Bill Committee. It turned out to be unnecessary since the petitioners against the Bill reached agreement privately with the promoters. Instead, on 7th May the Bill went before an Unopposed Private Bill Committee. A number of Amendments were made, and at the conclusion of the Committee stage the Bill was returned to the House.
The Solicitor to the Greater London Council wrote to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) specifically answering some of the points which the hon. Member had made on Second Reading. The letter pointed out that fairly extensive Amendments had been made embodying many of the principles set out in the interesting report of the Advisory Group on Walkways in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. For, the record, the date of that

letter is 12th May. It concluded with the words:
I hope that this information will assist you, but if any points require clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.
8.0 p.m.
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not reply to that letter, A week later, on 19th May, he put this blocking Motion to the Report stage of the Bill. There were subsequent letters dated 21st May and 3rd June. I am sorry that the one to which he referred was not dated, but the copy of it which I have bears the date 3rd June. At the end of that letter, the solicitor to the Council said that if he would like a discussion on the matter representatives of the London Boroughs Association and of the Council would be pleased to meet him at the House of Commons, and he was asked to suggest a time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. As hon. Members know, it is normal practice when objection by an hon. Member is known for the promoters to take steps to ask for a meeting. That was not done on this occasion. It started off on the basis of correspondence and continued on that basis.

Mr. Batsford: I do not want to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but, as he knows, I myself wrote to him suggesting a meeting.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said on Second Reading, it is a very good thing that the House should have an opportunity of debating these Private Bills. However, as we know, they are the subject of a rather unusual procedure. After Second Reading, very often there remain detailed points, and more private discussions take place between the promoters, petitioners and hon. Members. I am only sorry that the proposed meeting did not take place. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman made it clear to me, as he has to the House, that his main opposition to the Bill concerned walkways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) raised the subject of walkways, and perhaps I might say a word about them in general because it is a comparatively new term.
The segregation of pedestrians and traffic is now accepted as an essential aspect of urban planning, and examples exist in London at the Elephant and Castle and at the bridge from the Shell building to Waterloo Station. They are planned in connection with the London Museum in the City, and they are extensively planned in the new design for Piccadilly Circus, with the support and co-operation of the G.L.C.
"Walkway" is not another word for a pedestrian precinct. If a street is closed to vehicular traffic, it does not necessarily become a walkway. If a railing is put round a pavement or sidewalk to protect pedestrians from cars and vice-versa, it does not automatically follow that one is creating a walkway. Walkways which are elevated or act as bridges or ramps are a new conception and, as such, require special legislation, and I agree with those hon. Members who have suggested that such legislation should be introduced not as a Private Bill but on a national level and by the appropriate Government Department.
A special report by the Advisory Group recognised and provided definitions for walkways, as the hon. Gentleman has done. But the whole point is that the Advisory Group's Report was available only after the Bill was deposited in Parliament. I understand, however, that the report has been put forward as a basis for general legislation which presumably, ultimately, will be introduced by the Government. In the meantime, it is providing guidance to local authorities which may be considering private legislation. In those circumstances, surely it is right for the G.L.C. to put this walkway legislation into its general powers Bill.
Two other local authorities, the Common Council of the City of London and Newcastle Corporation, have promoted legislation relating to walkways. It appears in Part II of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1967, and in Part II of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Act, 1968. The proposals in the G.L.C.'s Bill are based on the City of London Act, and they are promoted at the request of the London Boroughs Association. I understand, incidentally, that similar powers are now being sought by Liverpool Corporation

in a Bill which is now before Parliament.
To return to the Report of the Advisory Group on Walkways, as I have said, the Bill was deposited in Parliament before that report was published. It is a pity that such an important report should be published in this way and not printed in a smaller format.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for referring to it in one or two detailed respects. In this day and age we are plagued with new names such as "motorway" and "pathway". We are now familiar with "pathway", "footway", and even "causeway". Now we have the new word, "walkway". It would seem from the report that in future everywhere we walk will be known as a walkway.
Paragraph 15 of the report refers to a footpath or street which has been "pedestrianised". That is a terrible word to use. Just because there are no cars on a road and it has gone back to its original use for pedestrians or walkers, I see no reason why it should be referred to as having been "pedestrianised". At the same time, it makes one realise that, with all-day and all-night parking such as one sees in so many parts of London, far too many pavements have been "motorised".
Paragraph 56 refers to the "walkway code". One can imagine with some relish the future compilation of and the debate in this House on a walkway code.
Probably the most important paragraphs from the point of view of this debate are paragraphs 34 and 35. My hon. Friend did not refer to them, but I think that he will agree that they are important. Paragraph 34 says:
Public utilities have powers under various Acts of Parliament to break up streets and bridges for the purpose of placing their works in them. These powers were clearly intended to apply to streets constructed on solid ground, and to bridges which carry streets as defined in the relevant legislation. The Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, regulates the way in which statutory undertakers may exercise these powers. But although the underlying Acts and the 1950 code of practice deal with bridges, they do not seem entirely appropriate to walkways above ground.
Paragraph 35 says:
The inadequacy of the existing law to cover the novel problems of walkways, which prompted the Cities of London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne to promote private legislation, dictates a new approach.


In paragraph 40, the report states:
We are, therefore, in general agreement with the approach of the Cities of London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne that existing powers of planning control should be strengthened so as to enable an authority granting planning permission to require that a building is designed to incorporate, and constructed to carry, a walkway …

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the approach of the City of London in this matter is wholly different from that of the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The approach of the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in effect, was that walkways shall, as near as possible, be highways. That makes life a great deal easier for the undertakers. The last paragraph quoted by my hon. Friend referred only to planning powers. This has nothing to do with highway powers, which are more closely associated to the needs of statutory undertakers.

Mr. Botsford: I see the point made by my hon. Friend. I was trying to show that the introduction of legislation by those two bodies created a precedent which the Greater London Council has followed.
The whole of appendix 3 of the report, which extends to some seven pages, is devoted to statutory undertakers. But in paragraph 17(b) where the group proposes a code, it states:
The rights, however, should not automatically extend to walkways which do not rest on solid ground—elevated walkways …
This right was discussed in Committe on the present Bill, and I understand that a meeting was held at which the undertakers gave an undertaking that they would introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament to put that right.
Clause 24 is based on Section 19 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1967. But during the passage of the Bill the statutory undertakers, as my hon. Friend knows, strenuously argued that they should have the same rights on elevated walkways and also within buildings. This contention was rejected by committees in both Houses of Parliament. Nevertheless, during the Committee stage of this general powers Bill, an undertaking was given to the Select Committee that a Bill conferring rights on statutory undertakers would be introduced at a later stage.
To delete Part III of the Bill altogether to ensure that the walkway powers are not granted at all is surely contrary to the best interests of statutory undertakers, because very important developments, including walksways, will have to go ahead under the existing powers. This would mean that undertakers would have no rights whatever, under the present law, in any walkway in any London borough.
If, on the other hand, Part III is passed, the undertakers will have, first, immediate rights in ground-level type walkways; second, immediate consultation under Clause 24(3); third, assurance that legislation will be introduced next Session; and, fourth, assurance of consultation with planning authorities on walkways proposals.
I understand that the Multiple Shops Federation, which was extremely interested in this part of the Bill and was the only petitioner against Part III in Committee, now supports the proposals in their present form. I very much hope that my hon. Friends are satisfied with this explanation and will withdraw their Amendment.
I now come to the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, which seeks to delete the section of the Bill on walkways which defines the defence available to borough councils for damage resulting from a failure to maintain the surface of a walkway.
In his speech on Second Reading, which I have reread, the hon. Gentleman also discussed much wider aspects of compensation which, in my view, do not strictly arise on this subsection.
8.15 p.m.
In winding up the debate on Second Reading, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government assured the hon. Gentleman that all the comments that he had made on compensation would be communicated to his right hon. Friend. He also said that his right hon. Friend and any other Ministers involved would be compounding a report on the Bill as a whole and that all the points mentioned in the debate would be looked at closely by the Ministers concerned.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford is aware that if any


Minister had wished to amend this Clause he would have sent a memorandum to the Committee. In fact, if any Minister had wished to delete this subsection altogether, as the hon. Gentleman wishes to do, he would have sent an instruction to the Committee to that effect. That, as we all know, has happened in the past with other Bills—including G.L.C. Bills.
Without wishing to anticipate the wind-up speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, it would seem that—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Gentleman talks about a wind-up speech. I am not winding up. This Motion has nothing to do with me. I am merely, as always, trying impartially and objectively to help the House.

Mr. Batsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was expecting that he would make the final remarks because his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) wound up on Second Reading.
The wording of the subsection is taken verbatim from Section 9(3) of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1967. I have already said that there is a similar provision in the Liverpool Corporation Bill now before Parliament. There is no need for me to remind the hon. Gentleman, because he has mentioned it, that the wording in both is virtually identical with Section 1(2) and (3) of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961, except that the word "walkway" has been substituted for "highway" throughout. It was obviously considered proper that the same standard of liability should attach to a borough council in connection with a walkway as with a highway.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a Member of this House at the time, but this Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by the then hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, Mr. W. T. Aitken, on 24th February, 1961. The subject of the repair of highways was introduced by my hon. Friend the then Member for Bristol, North-West, Mr. Martin McLaren. In this context he explained the difference between "nonfeasance" and "misfeasance".

Mr. Corfield: Malfeasance.

Mr. Batsford: My hon. Friend says "malfeasance". Not being a lawyer, I have never heard of these words before. I turned up the debate in which Mr. Martin McLaren was kind enough to define what these words meant This is relevant to the subject. He said:
The essence of nonfeasance is that no action will lie for damage suffered because of a highway authority's omission to perform its statutory duty to keep a highway in repair. If a highway authority carries out some repairs and does them badly, that is misfeasance and the authority can be sued. But if the authority does nothing at all, it is nonfeasance and it cannot be sued. To many people that seems to be a very illogical distinction.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1102.]
I can see that my hon. Friend agrees, as I do, with that definition.
This question was debated at length in the Committee on that Bill in 1961. As a result of a very forthright contribution by Mr. Speaker, the words which we are discussing in Clause 15(4) became law in respect of highways and made a significant contribution to the rights of ordinary citizens, which had not existed up to then. This was accepted. It was warmly welcomed generally in the case of highways, and I should have hoped that it would also be accepted in the case of walkways.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that in his reading of the Standing Committee OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th May, 1961 the hon. Gentleman took particular note of the reasons why the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who was then the Parliamentary Secretary, moved the new Clause. He did it to protect local authorities, because they had thousands of miles of miscellaneous types of highway. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the case in respect of walkways, and so the comparison does not apply.

Mr. Batsford: I agree that it is not yet the case with walkways, but I still believe that this step which the G.L.C. has taken in putting these words into the Bill is the right one, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said just now that this had nothing to do with him. I do not think that he quite meant it in that strong term, and if I rise now perhaps I can tempt him to intervene in this


debate and let us know some of the Government's thinking on this very important subject.
First, however, I should like to say how sad the comments were of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) about his own constituency. The House will be a poorer debating Chamber without him, and we are very sad to learn of the possible loss of his constituency.
I believe that in the years to come we shall look back on the development of walkways as one of the major and memorable events of this era. They embody a new concept of putting available space to good purpose, and they do so by the use, as it were, of another dimension in human movement. They embody a new concept of the segregation of human traffic into a new freedom for the walker, freedom from the dangers of the roads and of vehicles on them. They embody not only that new safety for the pedestrian, but also new amenities for the pedestrian, in the open space which they offer, in the outlook, and so on, and they embody a new media for the retail trade.
The importance of the new phenomena of these walkways in our way of life makes it of vital importance that the Government of the day should be alive to what is happening, and ready to act promptly and effectively in adjusting the general law to this new development. At present, the development has been pioneered by the local authorities. First, we had the City of London, then Newcastle-on-Tyne, Liverpool, one or two others which have not proceeded, and now we have before us this Bill. There has been a different approach in those several Bills which I have mentioned. In some cases, as in the present Bill, the rights of the citizen on walkways has been spelled out. In others, such as Newcastle-on-Tyne, the approach has been to say that these are highways, and that is that.
In any new development of this sort, certainly a development of this significance and magnitude, there are likely to be, to say the least of it, teething troubles. There are almost certain to be teething troubles if the operation of the new development comes in piecemeal. That is what is happening with walkways. The principle of walkways is coming into our law in a piecemeal fashion, and one must

congratulate the pioneers, the local authorities who are pioneering this, on endeavouring to produce a reasonable code of law. One must recognise that this is just the way in which much of our law has been made in the past—the local authority experiment developing into a general public law. One must recognise, too, that a progressive local authority should not be asked to restrain itself from planning and replanning its town centre merely because the Government have not got down to the job of producing new public law on this subject.
Particular problems have been highlighted in the consideration of this Bill, and I think that they wall into three categories. First, the problems of the users of the walkways. Second, the problems of the properties adjoining the walkways. Third, the problems of the statutory undertakers who, up to the present, have been accustomed to using highways for the purpose of their undertakings and would wish in some cases to use the walkways in the same way.
Going back over those three, so far as the users are concerned the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) has put forward a strong argument for some greater rights in the users than they would have if one treated the walkways merely as highways. I do not go with the hon. Gentleman in that argument. I think that in the Bill, where rights are spelled out in exactly the same words as in the Highways Act, 1961, in respect of walkways on the level the G.L.C. has gone as far as it should, but there are other problems which will present themselves if one is thinking of a comprehensive code of access to, and egress from, walkways. There are the stairways, elevators and escalators to the walkways.
8.30 p.m.
These problems need to be thought out. As for the adjoining owners, their interests in consideration of this Bill were represented by the Multiple Shops Federation, and the problems of the rights of support and maintenance of the walkways were considered, I understand in a co-operative way, between those petitioners and the promoters of the Bill and a satisfactory arrangement reached. That is not necessarily a satisfactory universal code as embodied in the Bill. We shall have to think very hard


about the general law for adjoining owners.
With statutory undertakers there is a serious gap in the law left by the Bill because it does not wholly deal with the rights of the statutory undertakers and what use they may make of the walkways. The Government must move rapidly in producing a code of general law applicable to this phenomenal de-delopment of walkways. The Government have the Report of the Advisory Group on Walkways. It is an extremely useful document which can form the basis of legislation.
In the foreword the group says:
We have found that the existing general law is not adequate to deal with what will be an increasingly important feature of urban development. We put our report forward as a basis for the preparation of general legislation which we recommend should be introduced when opportunity offers;—
Pausing there, I would not leave it until "opportunity offers". I hope that the Government will make an opportunity to bring in general law at the earliest possible moment. The report goes on:
and meanwhile as a guide to those local authorities which may be considering private legislation.
In appendix 2 of the report a lot more problems are mentioned in summarising the group's conclusions. The appendix lists a number of these problems, such as responsibilities of local authorities for walkways, expenditure on them, procedure for creating them and defining the rights of those who use them, planning control and the imposition of what may be called positive covenants binding the adjoining owners, the construction of walkways and whether compulsory powers should be given to local authorities for acquisition of the right to erect a walkway, and, in particular, compensation for those affected by the construction of walkways.
I hope that when this code of law is introduced we shall see that compensation applies not only to the owner who has had a portion of his property taken from him to construct a walkway but also to adjoining owners who may suffer by having the walkway pass by their window. There are major problems to be dealt with, summarised in the appendix. They are also dealt with at some

length in the report. My hon. Friends have indicated the value of the report, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell the House that the Government have in mind bringing forward public legislation at a very early date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South has said that the Greater London Council has given an undertaking to bring in the supplemental Bill next Session to deal with the rights of statutory undertakers. That will be necessary, because I cannot imagine that the present Government, or any Government, could move so rapidly as to have a Bill ready by early autumn. There will probably need to be a filling of the gap by another Private Bill from the G.L.C. I hope that the Government will be able to follow that up quickly with general legislation. This is an extremely important subject. It is something new which will change our way of getting about, our way of life, I believe, for the good.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: When I intervened earlier to say that I had nothing to do with the matter I did not mean to imply that I was at all indifferent to the walkways and their importance. All I meant to imply was that this Bill was in no sense a Government Bill. It is promoted by the Greater London Council and, as is always the case in these matters, it is for that council to convince the House that the Bill is necessary. All I can do is to deal with some of the points that have been raised, and to give the House some indication of my views.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) should have begun by knocking me about so much, saying that I was lacking in assiduity. Coming from a predecessor, it was a very hard blow, and not calculated, I thought, to invite my support for an Amendment which he moved with such skill.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's criticism was fair. I remember that I spoke in the debate on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill in 1967. It was then quite clear that we needed to know a great deal more about the subject and get a good deal clearer an idea of the right approach to it. The result


was that my right hon. Friend invited the working party to which reference has been made to advise him on what should be done. It was a difficult job and it took a long time, but the working party has produced, as everyone has agreed, an extremely valuable and helpful report. I have to say yet again that the advice and help we get from those whom we invite to consider these things is of enormous value, and we owe a very great deal to them.
I have referred to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South on the subject of my laziness, but when the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) criticises the format of the report I feel that I am dealing with someone whose views I must take with very great respect indeed. I am sorry if, in his view, we did not keep up to those great standards of which he spoke, but we did produce a report which is available for study, and should be studied.
I was asked about the likelihood of our producing general legislation within the immediate future. I do not think that that is very likely. That is not because we have shelved the problem. We do not regard it as being satisfactorily dealt with by an inquiry, and nothing more. We are continuing our inquiries, consultations and discussions. Nevertheless, it will be quite clear from the debate and the general background that this is a very contentious matter, and that we shall not by any means get a general view which everyone will accept. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put it, on the three matters he raised there are many conflicting interests which have to be considered before we reach a final decision about any legislation.
We certainly hope to be able to produce fairly quickly a code—using the word in its looser sense—which could be used as an indication of what we think are the points that local authorities should keep in mind in preparing Private Bills of this sort. They will have to take into account not only the views of statutory undertakers, but those of bodies like, for instance, the Multiple Shops Federation, and of the planners—

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I say at once to him that a code like that would

not be satisfactory—merely an advisory code of points for local authorities to put in their Bills whether or not they wished to do so. I press again for an alteration in the general law.

Mr. MacColl: An alteration in the general law is the ideal at which we should aim, but I suggest that we should not leave it at that and not do anything until that aim can be achieved. Certainly, I would not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of having general legislation. However, I would not like to wait until then before taking action, and I suggest that it is useful for us to put forward certain views that we have collected on this issue.
This brings me to the question of the Bill. We made our view clear in the report which we put to the Select Committee. We said:
In the Minister's view, this part of the Bill in the form as deposited should not be allowed unless the Committee are satisfied that the promoters' requirements are so urgent that this part of the Bill cannot be withdrawn for further consideration
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South said, accurately, that there were difficulties in the procedure. It was not possible to extend the scope of the Bill, It is, therefore, correct to say that the Greater London Council gave an undertaking about producing another Measure to meet some of these points.
There are two courses which the promoters could have taken. First, they could have gone to the trouble, and through the complicated procedure, of trying to get an extension of the scope of the Bill; or, secondly, they could have withdrawn the provision and brought forward a comprehensive set of provisions for a Bill next Session, which, in any event, they will produce.
I think that the second alternative would have been the best. It would have been better for the Government Department, better for possible petitioners and better for Parliament, since any interested parties could have considered the whole aspect of the issue at one and the same time and not be having two bites at the cherry.
If it is accepted, however, that there is an urgent need for the Bill, then the House may feel that that is a formidable enough objection. I understand that it


is not correct to say, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South said, that there was no inquiry into the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Corfield: I did not challenge that, but merely referred to the suggestion.

Mr. MacColl: The Select Committee probed this matter with a great deal of care to satisfy itself.
Nor do I suggest that the hon. Member for Ealing, South gave a clear answer to the question of urgency. He rather left it the way it is, saying that one must accept the Select Committee's view. I am not really in a position, not having read any of the proceedings on this score, to say how strong was the question of urgency.
This seems a matter in which the Department, as a Government Department, should not interfere. The House must judge the urgency of the issue. The House must balance the views, put forward effectively in this debate, between those who think that it would be better to wait and those who think that the matter is so urgent that we should take what would be a less satisfactory course and go forward with this part of the Bill in its rather unsatisfactory state. I have no reason not to accept the undertakings which have been given by the G.L.C., but it is a matter for the House to judge.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved), I personally think that these walkways should be considered as highways.

That is the best way of dealing with the matter. If that happened many difficulties would not arise. They arise only because the G.L.C. has decided to have this rather curious mixture. It is for this House on this basis to make up its mind on the Amendment.

Mr. Corfield: I am always reluctant to divide the House on a Thursday night, when there is a very thin attendance. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. I hope that he will endeavour to persuade the G.L.C. to give an undertaking such as I suggested, that further consultation will take place and that there will be arbitration, if necessary, through the responsible Ministers in each case. Then everybody will be happy.
It would be much more satisfactory if we could have that assurance, but even without it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

PAVING, ETC., OF WALKWAYS

Amendment proposed: In page 15, line 18, to leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Weilbeloved.]

Question put, That that Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 30.

Division No. 278.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Luard, Evan


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E.
Lubbock, Eric


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gregory, Arnold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McBride, Neil


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bidwell, Sydney
Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth


Binns, John
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Horner, John
Murray, Albert


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Neal, Harold


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Newens, Stan


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ogden, Eric


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Faulds, Andrew
Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman


Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)




Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)



Small, William
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Roy Roebuck and


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Whitaker, Ben
Mr. A. H. Macdonald.


Tinn, James






NOES


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Sharples, Richard


Batsfortl, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Silvester, Frederick


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Speed, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Stodart, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Chiehestsr-Clark, R.
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Corfield, F. V.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tlo-upon-Tyne, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Errington, Sir Eric
Percival, Ian
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Eyre, Reginald
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Goodhart, Philip

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker has not selected the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), that the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is regrettable that when promoting private legislation the G.L.C., which is the largest local authority in the world, certainly in that part of it which is the most progressive, does not have the courtesy to circulate to hon. Members who represent constituencies in the administrative area of Greater London copies of the Bill or an explanatory memorandum to it when it presents it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of local authorities, when they promote Bills, generally show the courtesy of circulating all Members, whether or not they are immediately concerned?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for supporting me in the Lobby just now, but, after that splendid victory, for elevating me to the position of a right hon. Member. Many large corporations, when presenting Private Bills, are courteous enough to

inform Members representing constituencies in the area. I am merely drawing the attention of the G.L.C. to the fact that it should be equally courteous.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the burgesses of the G.L.C. have the good sense at the next council election to elect Labour councillors who know how the job should be done properly, this difficulty will be obviated?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree.
The point which I am about to make may be controversial. It may even provoke an hon. Member opposite to spring to his feet and say something. This is the occasion on which a warning shot should be put across the bows of the G.L.C. Let there be no doubt that if it introduces doctrinaire party political housing policies for the citizens of London, this House will want to examine in very great detail any future money Bills which are presented to it. If it does not indulge in doctrinaire housing policies, the tradition whereby money Bills go through unopposed can be maintained.

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to draw attention to the inadequate provision in paragraph 28 of Part II of the Schedule to the Bill. It makes provision of £20 million for loans to persons or bodies of persons under the Housing Act, 1957. We cannot amend the Bill now and increase that sum, but we should place on record that £20 million in a year for loans to housing associations and individual owner-occupiers and for


the improvement of housing is inadequate. London is the great capital centre of the world and it should have a great deal of money available. The G.L.C. could easily lend twice that amount.
I agree that the Government must put some restraint on public expenditure. There is no reason why this money should come from public sources. I regret that the G.L.C. has not shown sufficient imagination to raise this money from private sources. There are almost 8 million people in the G.L.C. area. Countries with populations half that size are able to run their own housing banks and make their own provision for lending to owner-occupiers and housing associations. It is a matter of regret that, in the midst of so much money about in London, so niggardly a sum should be provided for purposes urgently needed in the metropolis.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On the question of raising money, has my hon. Friend heard the rumours going about that the Greater London Council is dragging its feet on the scheme to build the National Theatre? Would it not be right for an hon. Member opposite, perhaps, to give us some assurance on that point?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, have a chance to make his own speech if he wishes.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: I do not wish to make a great speech on a Measure which does not immediately affect the City and County of Kingston upon Hull, but it is important that hon. Members representing places in what is known euphemistically as the Provinces—though we in Yorkshire know that we lead the rest of the country—should be aware of the attitudes and policies being followed by the present Greater London Council and should be careful lest we tend to follow some of the precedents set by the G.L.C. in the legislation which it thinks necessary to bring in.
The Greater London Council, in the way it treats its council tenants and the way it treats people generally—owneroccupiers and people seeking loans—does badly in comparison with many cities in the rest of the country. Having now accepted on a Division the Amendment

moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), we should be careful not to follow the Greater London Council's idea of proper precedent.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), having kept his hon. Friends here on a Thursday evening to afford them the pleasure of twisting the tail of the G.L.C., which, of course, was the whole object of the last exercise[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—must now afford them a few further moments' entertainment; so we had from him an impassioned few seconds about the so-called doctrinaire attitudes of the Greater London Council. Terms of that kind come ill from the mouth of Socialists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On the whole question of housing finance—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Rossi: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had his fun.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Rossi: I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has not given way.

Mr. Rossi: If there is any doctrine to be followed in this matter, it is that the local authorities ought to be able to arrange for their own affairs without interference from the central Government. The electors of Greater London elected an authority with an overwhelming majority, to follow a particular policy which was promulgated at the election, and those ratepayers have clearly expressed their views on this matter.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Rossi: All right. I shall give way now.

Mr. McNamara: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a dangerous occasion of sin to which they succumbed?

Mr. Rossi: I shall not enter into matters of theology with the hon. Gentleman, although our views are not so dissimilar on these.
If we are to have a doctrine on matters of housing policy, it must be that this should be left to the local authority without doctrinaire interference by hon. Members opposite.
After all, what we are quarrelling about is the fact that the G.L.C. has sought to bring up its council rents to a fair rent level. It was the Labour Government who introduced the fair rent system. In the private sector, where fair rents operate, the level of those fair rents is 70 per cent. above the rents of council property. All that the council has been saying in its housing policy is, "Give us leave to raise our rents to the fair rent level for comparable private property, the level which is being fixed by rent officers appointed under an act promulgated by the present Government. If we are allowed to raise our rents to a comparable level, we will try to reduce the appalling deficit of over £10 million which has to be met by our ratepayers."
It is argued that the tenants of council property are not on average economically worse off than the occupiers of flats and houses in the private rented sector who are paying rents on an average 70 per cent. above the council rent structure. Therefore, the suggestion was that over a period of three years, so that the impact would not be too harsh, the level of rents of the Council would be raised gradually so that they would reach the comparable level of the fair rents being brought about by the rent officers.
That would have tremendously helped to reduce the rate burden. It would not have caused hardship, because side by side with that proposal was the proposal for the introduction of a generous rent rebate scheme which would have benefited one tenant in three and produced rebates and benefits to the extent of £6½ million.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not true that there is no real need for the increase? Is it not a mere doctrinaire increase? What the council is trying to do is to place upon its own tenants a burden which should be properly shared by all London's ratepayers.

Mr. Rossi: This is not so. There is a very real need for this, because at this very time the council is considering a mid-year increase in its rate because it is unable to balance its budget, taking this situation with the other financial strictures

the Government have imposed upon the council.
This is to some extent recognised by the Government. On 2nd April, 1969, the Minister, when he declined to sanction the increase in rents sought by the council, suggested that the way the Council should meet its deficit was by borrowing. It would have to borrow, amongst other things, to pay the salaries of its staff. There are many hon. Members opposite who have great experience in local government affairs.
How many of them before now have heard the suggestion that a revenue item such as that of the salary of staff should not be paid out of current income, but by way of capital borrowing? That is the suggestion which the Minister made to the G.L.C. in his letter 2nd April, when the council pointed out clearly the extent of the deficit that ratepayers would have to meet if it was not given this rent increase. What would be the effect of this capital borrowing? It will merely postpone to a date in the future the payment of the debt and in addition add to its current interest rates of perhaps 9½ per cent. or 9⅝ per cent.
This suggestion is economic nonsense. It is purely doctrinaire policy which is opposing these reasonable proposals of the G.L.C. This is where the doctrinaire element enters the argument.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that what the G.L.C. is up to is seeking to place upon its existing tenants the cost of future developments of new estates, which should be carried by the whole body of the ratepayers?

Mr. Rossi: We are talking about the current deficit which we are seeking to meet. These rate increases will merely help to bridge the present gap without taking future expenditure into account. The budget is not being balanced now, it has a shortfall of £10½ million. Either the tenants or the ratepayers have to pay, it must come from one pocket or the other or from an admixture of both.
When we are faced with the situation that the tenants in this kind of accommodation are paying, on average, 70 per cent. below what is considered to be a fair rent, then the question arises that if they are able to afford a fair rent why should they receive this subsidy from


others who are perhaps having to pay a great deal more rent than they are? We are talking of rents of £3 10s. a week for three-bedroomed accommodation. This, I would have thought, was a very fair rent. It is the sort of rent that the G.L.C. is asking to charge these people who can afford to pay it. If they cannot, they will get a rent rebate under the generous rent rebate scheme.
There is nothing doctrinaire in that, the doctrinaire element comes from hon. Members opposite who, having forced on the country a prices and incomes policy, having tried to peg wages, have to justify that by saying that they will stop people paying justifiable increases out of frozen income. I have ranged further than I had intended—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those cheers encourage me because they mean that what I have said needed to be said to answer the nonsense that has come from the other side of the House.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Albert Murray: We have heard an interesting argument from the other side of the House which seems to suggest that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) does not want the G.L.C. to get the Bill. He has introduced many doctrinaire Conservative policies, particularly on rents, and has adduced the peculiar argument that if there are bad landlords charging unfair rents the G.L.C. should do the same. He mentioned that G.L.C. tenants were paying 70 per cent. less in rents than people in ordinary rented accommodation. That is as good an argument for bad conditions and high rents as one is ever likely to hear from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Rossi: Either the hon. Gentleman has not listened sufficiently carefully or I did not explain myself sufficiently well. I was trying to say that the level was 70 per cent. below the fair rent level as fixed by independent rent officers appointed by this Government, not 70 per cent. below rents fixed by private landlords.

Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman has picked from the air the arbitrary figure of 70 per cent. Would the fact that an independent rent officer has lowered the rent, as has happened, justify a reduction

in G.L.C. rents? It is completely unfair for the hon. Gentleman to snatch this arbitrary figure of 70 per cent. from the air and say that is a case for the G.L.C. to put up rents.
During the campaign before the G.L.C elections we were told extravagantly as it now turns out, that the G.L.C. would produce efficiency, reduce rates and do all manner of things, but this is not what they are doing. What they are doing, as many Conservative-controlled councils are doing, is holding council-house tenants to ransom and blaming them for all the problems which individual councils face.
In view of the doctrinaire Conservative arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Hornsey, we might have to consider whether it is judicious to give a Third Reading to the Bill.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Roebuck: I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray). Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) I thought that we might let this Measure go through I had not realised what lay behind the Measure until the hon. Member for Hornsey drew the House's attention to the deplorable doctrinaire thinking of the promoters.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the Government were wrong to take certain actions with regard to local authorities. Many hon. Members feel that it is entirely appropriate that local authorities should be allowed to pursue matters which have a purely local significance, and that when local authorities are doing their work properly it is oppressive for the Government to seek to intervene.
As the hon. Member for Hornsey suggested, there are some local authorities, in Greater London in particular, which organise their affairs not so much for the benefit of the local burgesses but in such a way as to set themselves up as rivals to Parliament, and it may be that by passing this Measure we shall be sustaining the Greater London Council in that foolish and unworthy notion. It would appear from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that we are being asked to give the Measure a Third Reading to enable the Greater London Council to pursue certain policies by giving them


extra-parliamentary powers. There was no suggestion at the time of the election of the Greater London Council that it would come to Parliament to seek these powers. The candidates said that if Conservative councillors were elected everything in the garden would be lovely, rates would be reduced and services would be increased. There was no word then about the need to come to the House to seek greater powers.
Since the election, the Greater London councillors have found that they cannot fulfil their election promises, and, instead of going back honestly to the electors and saying, "We misled you, we made promises which we cannot fulfil", they are now, by the Bill, seeking to say that it is the fault of the Government, and that Parliament should put matters right by giving the council certain powers. I am not satisfied that Parliament should do this.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the G.L.C. is under a statutory obligation to come to the House annually with this Bill, and that it is therefore not seeking powers which were not foreseen at the time of the Greater London Council election?

Mr. Roebuck: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I am seeking to follow the argument advanced with tremendous skill by the hon. Member for Hornsey. I am following almost exactly the points which he made.

Mr. Speaker: This is not an argument which should be pursued further. All I am interested in is that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) should relate his remarks to the Bill which is before us.

Mr. Roebuck: May I assure you with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that we are at one in that. I was hovering on the brink in deciding whether I should accept the arguments put so cogently and at such great length by the hon. Member for Hornsey. He suggested that if the House did not give a Third Reading to the Bill the Greater London councillors would be in breach of their election pledges, and I was seeking to show that at that time there was no suggestion that the Bill would be necessary to enable them to fulfil their election promises.

We are being asked to approve an excuse for these councillors who have so miserably failed.
In my constituency I remember supporters of the party opposite saying to my constituents, "Return us to the Greater London Council and you will have to pay only an extra 10s. a week and you will be able to own a house." That was the sort of taradiddle that was put round the council estates in my constituency. The hon. Member now seeks to redeem that promise by asking Parliament to pass this Measure.

Mr. Anthony Berry: Would not the hon. Member honour the promises he gave at the time of his election?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not permit a debate tonight on the last Greater London County Council election.

Mr. Roebuck: Certainly there will be other opportunities for us to engage in that matter. Before I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey I was disposed to say that we should give this Measure a clear run, but having listened to him—

Mr. Graham Page: For the sake of accuracy, and since the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has referred many times to the Bill's being given a Third Reading, we shall not have that opportunity tonight since we are debating the Second Reading.

Mr. Roebuck: The discussion certainly seems to have gone on as long as that because of the meandering speech by the hon. Member for Hornsey. As a result of that speech, before we agree to the Bill being committed my hon. Friends and I should consider the matter very carefully.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am always glad to rescue my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) from the brink. I should hate to see him do something that he might regret. Despite what has been said, if the Bill were not passed it would not be possible for the Greater London Council to borrow any money for schools, parks or anything else. Some hon. Members might feel that that might be used as an excuse


to cut down the services. Certainly it would not enable them to be expanded. I would say to my hon. Friends that in the interests of good government they should allow the Bill to go to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and Committed.

Orders of the Day — WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order).

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) will not be surprised that I have not selected his Amendment. May I try to help him? The Bill has received a Second Reading and it has been through to Committee. There are no Amendments at Consideration stage. If the hon. Member speaks, he will have to persuade Mr. Speaker why we should not consider the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is not difficult for me to persuade Mr. Speaker why we should not consider the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be very difficult.

Mr. Lewis: From my point of view it is not difficult, but I quite understand Mr. Speaker's point of view.
I have no intention of debating this Consideration stage at any length whatever. I assume that there will be a Third Reading of the Bill. Therefore, it is my intention to keep any arguments for discussion on Third Reading, of which I hope I shall be given due notice. Notice that the Bill was to be considered was very short indeed and if I had wanted to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, it would have been very difficult in the time available.
Hon. Members have received a memorandum from the promoters of the Bill, and it contains two matters which are worthy of comment. On the second page of the memorandum the promoters of the Bill say that during the course of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member would help me by telling me what memorandum he is considering. May I help him by saying that there are no Amendments at Consideration stage before the House. What the hon. Member has addressed himself to is the question whether we should consider the Bill at this moment, when there are no Amendments at Consideration stage.

Mr. Lewis: I took some advice before this stage was reached. Unless the Clerks have given different advice from the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I am able to say absolutely nothing. I was informed by the Clerks that I was in order in making a considerable speech, if I had wished to do so. I said that I wished to comment only briefly. That was the information I received from the Clerks.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should take his own advice rather than that of anybody else. The question at the moment is that the Bill be now considered. At Consideration stage there may be Amendments, but, in fact, there is none on the Order Paper. The hon. Member has to exercise his Parliamentary ingenuity to argue why we should not at this stage consider a Bill when, at Consideration stage, there is nothing for us to consider.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I wish that at Consideration stage of the Bill there was nothing to consider. But at least there is the Bill to consider. It would please me immensely if the Bill was not available to be considered and we did not need to have it at all.
We should not really consider the Bill, because on page 2 of the memorandum, which you, Mr. Speaker, obviously have not got, but which was sent by the promoters of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be all kinds of documents sent by the promoters of the Bill to the hon. Gentleman, to his hon. Friends and to his opponents. We are on a very narrow debate, namely, the Question, That the Bill be now considered. When we consider a Bill it is to enable Amendments to be made at Consideration stage. I have no notice of any Amendments to be taken at Consideration stage.

Mr. Graham Page: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to help?

Mr. Page: On a point of order. I understand that hon. Members have received a statement from the promoters of the Bill which is said to be a statement for the Consideration of the Bill. In that it is reported that the Committee did report in its special report on the Bill—and I presume that this special report comes before the House on this occasion in considering the Bill:
Your Committee have sat for nine days and have heard evidence adduced by the promoters of the Bill and by the petitioners against the Bill. Your Committee have passed the Bill with Amendments, but consider it their duty to bring to the attention of the House their view that there is an urgent necessity to study alternative supplies of water. They therefore strongly recommend that a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage be undertaken immediately.
I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether, when a Committee makes that report to the House, it would be proper to consider it on Consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am deeply indebted to my hon. and learned Friend, if I may call him so. But any remarks in the document to which he refers should be embodied in something which we should consider at Consideration stage. We are deciding at the moment whether we should consider the Bill. At Consideration stage we consider any Amendments which have been made since the Bill left Committee. There are no Amendments on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) must address himself to the question why we should not consider the Bill, for which there are no Amendments at Consideration stage. I think that we ought to close this debate soon.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I find myself in a most extraordinary situation, because you, Mr. Speaker, usually spend your time in this House, quite properly, attempting to persuade Members of Parliament to make speeches that are rather less in length than they might otherwise be. In fact, because of your intervention, you are prolonging the speech that I am trying to make.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Might I warn the hon. Gentleman that nothing Mr. Speaker ever says in the Chair is an encouragement to an hon. Member to speak longer than he intended.

Mr. Lewis: I am trying to persuade the House that there should not be consideration of this Bill, despite there being no Amendments to it. Perhaps I may explain. If there was an Amendment to the Bill accepting that the new reservoir proposed to be laid down in Rutland was to be cut in half, I should not need to oppose or make a speech. I should be so delighted that it would be quite unnecessary. But there is no Amendment laid to suggest that this sizable reservoir on 4,000 acres should be cut down to 2,000 acres. Because there is no such Amendment I am speaking on the Bill to try to prove to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that it is necessary that we should not have the Bill at Consideration Stage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity on Third Reading. For the moment he is arguing, because there are no Amendments at Consideration stage, that there ought to be, and, because there are not, he is opposed to consideration. The hon. Gentleman must vote against the Question, That the Bill be now considered.

Mr. Lewis: I have no control over Amendments that might have been put down to the Bill. In the first place, I was not on the Committee. However, I understand that various Amendments were accepted in Committee, and that these were helpful to the promoters of the Bill. I understand that the promoters of the Bill have been helpful also to the Rutland County Council. This council is not nearly as powerful as the G.L.C., which we discussed a little earlier, and it is fighting a lone and costly battle. The battle so far has cost the council about £12,000—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not think that I am unsympathetic to all the points that he is raising. He raised some of them on Second Reading. His last opportunity will be on Third Reading. His opportunity to raise those matters is not on the Question whether the Bill be now considered, when there is nothing to consider.

Mr. Lewis: Again, Mr. Speaker, it depends on one's point of view whether there is nothing to be considered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no point of view. I am simply preserving the Orders of the House.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary debate between you in a sedentary position and me on my feet. I am in the difficulty that I could not put down an Amendment. Had I done so, I should have wanted to know, for example, whether the council would be helped to meet this cost of about £12,000. It can get only £3,500 on a 1d. rate, and I should want to know whether the Minister would be prepared to help it financially. I should like him to say whether he would be prepared to make a contribution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be other opportunities for asking questions like that. I am passionately interested in Rutland, and in every small local authority in the country, but I am equally passionately interested in the Orders of the House. We are discussing whether the Bill should be now considered, when there is nothing to consider at Consideration stage. The hon. Member must try to prove that we ought to consider the Bill when there is nothing to consider.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that an extraordinary procedure was adopted in this case, something which has seldom, if ever, been done before. The Committee included a resolution saying that it was passing the Bill reluctantly on condition that the Government went ahead with the Wash Barrage. The Committee also sent two letters, one to the Prime Minister, and the other to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is true that those documents did not constitute amendments to the Bill, but they were sent by the Committee, and I think they are worthy of discussion in so far as the Committee agreed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. They may be worthy of discussion. May I help the hon. Member? His remedy is to vote against the Bill being now considered.

Mr. Lewis: I cannot yet bring myself to vote on this matter. I shall do so in due course, even if I vote entirely on my own.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Member that the Chair is very patient. We are debating almost in mow at the moment the Question whether the Bill be now considered.

Mr. Graham Page: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in due course.
The Question before the House at the moment is whether the Bill be now considered. At the moment we have nothing to consider. There are no Amendments for Consideration stage. This is a most ingenious exercise but it must stop in a moment.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if you are patient with me for a little longer I shall have said almost everything that I have to say. I realise your difficulty, and I sympathise greatly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The difficulty is not mine, but the hon. Member's.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that my difficulty is almost as great as yours, Mr. Speaker. I hope that on Third Reading we shall have a full debate on the report which was sent by this Committee, on the proposals for reservoirs, not only in the context of Rutland, but all reservoirs, and on the Wash Barrage.
Despite the fact that no Amendments are laid at this stage of the Bill, it must not be accepted that I agree with it, because I do not. The Rutland County Council has reluctantly withdrawn its opposition, because it felt that the cost of continuing the fight, for a small county, would be too great. Since it has to co-operate in due course with the promoters, it feels that the discussions must proceed while we are deciding what to do with the Bill.
The Empingham Reservoir is a massive reservoir, to be laid down in a small county, at a massive cost. It is the first of eight or nine and it must have the


serious consideration of the House. The House must decide whether we can go on digging large holes in the ground, even in small counties—other counties will be involved in due course—to provide water, or whether we ought not to try to get some other means of providing the services which are required for our urban population.

Mr. Graham Page: If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, on a point which I raised as a point of order just now, we are dealing with the Bill on Report from Committee. I have acquired from the Vote Office two documents, both headed:
Report from the Committee on the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Bill.
One is a special report from the Committee, which I read out previously. The other is what we usually see on Report of a Bill from a Committee a statement of the objections or reports which have been made to the Committee from the Ministry.
If there is no Amendment to the Bill I am not sure at what stage we can debate those reports if not on Report. I would have thought that the Report stage was the right time to debate these reports, even though the Committee did not amend the Bill. This is particularly so when the Committee made a special report in which it wished to bring to the attention of the House its view that there was an urgent necessity to study alternative supplies of water.
If such a Committee goes to the trouble of making a special report, having it printed, and placing it in the Vote Office, I would have hoped that the House could at some time debate it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am with the hon. Gentleman on the philosophical basis, but this is not the stage to do that. We have nothing before the House except whether the Report stage should be taken, whether Amendments should be considered. There are no Amendments; there is nothing before the House except whether the Bill be considered.

Mr. Page: I shall have achieved my purpose if I have your ruling that these reports can be debated on Third Reading. As they are headed "Reports" I thought that the logical thing was that they would be dealt with

on the Report stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said that he wanted to raise a debate on Third Reading. If we can return to the reports I am sure that the House will be happy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not promise what I will do in the Chair on Third Reading. I am concerned only with the present question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX

9.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I beg to move,
That the Selective Employment Payments Variation Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.
When S.E.T. was first debated, the Government told the House that from time to time permission would be sought to reclassify an industry under the terms of the Act, thereby relieving the industry of the obligation to bear the tax, and making it eligible for refund and premium payment. This power to reclassify was always thought to be necessary for two reasons. The first reason was that the tax was originally dependent on the Standard Industrial Classification, an instrument designed for different purposes. The second reason was that changes in industrial processes might mean that an industry once properly classified so changed its techniques as to invalidate its original classification.
Section 9 of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, permits the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to make an Order extending or limiting employments eligible for refund. This power to include additional industries in the lists of those eligible for payment under Section 1 of the Selective Employment Payments Act was first used in 1968.
The further extensions for which I seek permission tonight number seven in all. Article 2(1) of the Order reclassifies scrap, metal processes, waste paper processing,


film production and industrial photo-printing. This reclassification is the main objective of the Order. Article 2(2) extends and clarifies the categories of slaughter men who qualify for repayment. Article 3 adds gas production and distribution by private companies to the activities eligible for refund under Section 2 of the Selective Employment Payments Act. Eligibility for refund in all these categories depends on each establishment fulfilling the usual qualifying rules.
The waste trades are, with minor exceptions classified in the Standard Industrial Classification as part of the distributive trades. In the Government's view, this remains the right classification for establishments which collect, sort and sell waste materials. But companies which process the materials to specifications into a form suitable for reuse perform an operation which can more accurately be described as manufacture. They change the shape, size and composition of the material, by processes which involve the use of machinery often of a complex and expensive type. Article 2 will include in the refund categories establishments engaged in such processes. Dealers in scrap metal and waste paper, who do not process the material, will remain under a distributive heading in the Standard Industrial Classification.
The processing of cinematograph films for public exhibition is already in the refund category; so, of course, is the production of unexposed film. Only one process in film making is excluded—the actual shooting of the film. It is, however, an integral part of film manufacture, and is, by any standard, manufacturing. Analogous processes, including the manufacture of video-tape recordings, will appear in the refund category of the 1968 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification which it is proposed in the Finance Bill to bring into use at the same date as this Order.
The fourth major change we seek to make provides for the reclassification of industrial photoprinting. This activity is not specifically listed in the Standard Industrial Classification. Previously it had been regarded as "photography". It is, however, more properly thought of as an independent activity, and a manufacturing process closely akin to printing.
Last year an Order added to establishments eligible under Section 1 of the Selective Employment Payments Act, private slaughter houses and knacker's yards. Local authorities' slaughter houses already qualified for refund. But two anomalies arose. Private slaughterers operating in municipal establishments and slaughtering carried out from rather than in knackers' yards were excluded. Article 2(2) rectifies these omissions.
Article 3 makes the production of gas by a private sector establishment eligible for refund. In 1966, all the production of gas in Great Britain was undertaken by the gas boards, which, as public utilities, qualified for refund. Since the exploitation of natural gas from the North Sea, one or two private companies process the crude gas before selling it to the board. Under the Order they will receive a refund of S.E.T.
The total cost of these adjustments is about £3 million, of which the reclassification of waste-paper processing accounts for £220,000; scrap metal processing, £1,600,000; and the adjustments to the eligibility of various slaughtermen, £150,000. The cost to the Revenue of the changes in the classification of filmmaking is estimated at about £900,000; industrial photoprinting, £85,000; and the production of gas, £10,000. All sections of the Order, if approved, will conic into effect on 7th July, the date from which the new rates of S.E.T. will operate.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: Orders of this kind are narrowly interpreted and I hope, therefore, that my remarks will not bring you to your feet as frequently as occurred during the previous debate, Mr. Speaker. I am safe in saying that my hon. Friends welcome the Order, if only on the ground that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth Any step such as this towards the reduction of the burden of S.E.T. is a step forward.
What the Government are doing tonight—but what the hon. Gentleman did not say—is admitting that they have made a mistake. He almost admitted that a mistake had been made in the adoption of the Standard Industrial Classification for the purpose of S.E.T., and what the hon. Gentleman is now


saying by the Order is that, notwithstanding the activities to which the Order refers being services and not manufacturing, according to the classification in the S.I.C., they will nevertheless benefit from a refund of the tax. He is, thereby confirming what has been said many times; that it was a grievous blunder to take the S.I.C. as the basis for the tax.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that the anomalies caused by the tax and the adoption of the S.I.C. as its basis were bound to be serious. We find from this Order confirmation that there are anomalies—some of which this Instrument is putting right—but, as a result of the Order, other anomalies will doubtless be created. The Government will hear much about coming anomalies later. Unfortunately, I cannot argue that matter now because of the rules of order.
I can point out, however, another type of problem which arises, and that is that the correction of one anomaly creates another. For example, in respect of slaughter houses the hon. Gentleman said on 8th July last year that private slaughter houses were at a disadvantage compared with local authority ones and that the Order which he was then presenting would put the position right. On that occasion he gave the impression that everybody would be on a fair basis in the slaughter house business.
We see tonight, however, that the hon. Gentleman has had to correct an anomaly which was created by the correction of a previous anomaly by the Order of last summer. That, apparently, was the result of ignorance on the part of his Department. It is surprising that his Department was not able to get the matter right first time, that it did not know enough about slaughter houses and the practices in them to be able to solve the problem in one go.
It is not only a question of anomalies, nor talking in statistical terms about the amount of money which this Order will cost the Revenue. This tax is affecting the businesses and lives of people engaged in the industries which are subject to the tax. We should not underestimate the anxiety, misery and resentment caused to people who are in businesses which they feel are unjustly subjected to the tax, quite apart from the fact that the imposition of the tax can put people out of business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that there is a selective employment tax and there are payments, but we are discussing a small isolated group in this Order.

Mr. Blaker: I entirely take your point, Mr. Speaker, and I hope within about 30 seconds to satisfy you that the point I am about to make is in order.
I was referring to the feelings of people relieved from payment of tax by this Order who for years have felt resentment because they thought they were wrongly classified. Now, having battled with the Government for nearly three years, they have convinced the Government, but they have had to wait a long time to do so.
We should consider the effect caused for those businesses in the last three years. Perhaps it would have been more satisfactory if the Under-Secretary had said a word of regret about the fact that these people have, as he now admits, in effect, been wrongly classified. They have been paying the tax all the time. He now says that scrap processing and shooting of films should count as manufacturing. That is what those people have been saying all the time, but for all that time they have had to pay the tax.
The importance of the industries which are now to be relieved of the tax should go without saying, but we cannot leave it without saying because if the Government had realised the importance of these industries they would not have subjected them to the tax in the first place. The importance of the scrap metal processing industry lies in the absence of raw materials in this country. We have virtually no minerals except a small quantity of tin and iron ore. The ferrous scrap industry processes and supplies about a quarter of the basic raw material used by British steel makers. The consumption of pure scrap is about 13½ million tons a year by the British steel industry and the import saving is over £100 million a year. Exports have reached a rate of £14 million a year.
In the non-ferrous scrap field, it is estimated that £180 million are saved and exports have run at £6 million a year. In waste paper, 1½ million tons are processed annually to meet the requirements of industry and exports have realised almost £2 million a year. As for the film industry, one should not underestimate the importance of the effect of


showing British films overseas in promoting our prestige, exports and tourism. Photo-printing is fundamental as a new, developing industry. Perhaps there is some excuse here for the Government's late recognition of the importance of refunding the tax because this is a fast developing industry, but it is of fundamental importance to manufacturing industry and is becoming more so every day. Slaughterhouses and gas are also basic to our prosperity.
We have recognised the importance of these industries for some time and my hon. Friends and I have worked to persuade the Government to take the course they have now taken. This is particularly true of efforts by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in connection with the reclamation industry. The industries too have worked to persuade the Government to change their mind and they are very conscious of the hours they have put in in paper work and deputations to Ministers, with the support of trade associations, to achieve this result. Of course, there are other trade associations which are still exerting themselves similarly, so a lot of time is being wasted for industry by the anomalies created by this tax.
I would like to ask the Minister, in connection with the efforts of the industry to persuade the Government to refund this tax, how it was that so long a time has elapsed, in some cases, before the Government produced this Order. I would like to refer to the contacts which they have had with the British Secondary Metals Association, because it seems extraordinary that the Government should taken so long to make up their mind. I have here a history provided by the association of these negotiations and representations. They began early in 1967. In November, 1967, the association wrote to the Board of Trade suggesting a definition of a scrap processor. In February, 1968, something like a year after the representations were made, it had a letter from the Board of Trade regretting the delay on the review of the question and hoping for an early decision.
The association wrote again in April, 1968, and later that month it had further assurances from the Board of Trade that

interdepartmental discussions were continuing. In May, 1968, the result of the review which the Board of Trade had been conducting was announced and that led to the exemption of slaughterhouses; but there was no result for the scrap metal industry and the correspondence continued right through until the Budget speech of 1969. That seems an extraordinarily long time to take before results were achieved and I wonder whether the Minister would say why that was so. Regrettably, the experience of some of the other industries concerned has been rather similar.
This Order makes a most extraordinary change in the financial condition of the industries affected because its effect is that for every adult male employee, a qualifying firm will cease, as from next month when the rates go up, to pay 48s. a week; and if the firm is in a development area the difference between being excluded from refund and getting the benefit of the refund, when one takes into account the regional employment premium and the premium on the selective employment tax is 85s. 6d. per week if my figures are correct.
This is a most tremendous difference to be made by a stroke of the pen in the financial position of an industry; and it is done not because, in the generality of cases covered by this Order, there has been any change in the circumstances, but because the Government have at last decided that they were wrong all the way and have now got it right. They have decided now that these are good boys whereas previously they were bad boys.
I would like to ask the Minister what is to be done about the tax that has been paid by these industries since September, 1966. A lot of money has been paid. The Minister quoted some of the amounts and these illustrate the rate at which these industries have been paying this tax. The ferrous scrap metal industry has paid £4 million over nearly three years. The film production industry has paid £750,000. Do the Government propose to find some way of repaying this money, which has already been paid because they blundered? I hope that the Minister will deal with this question.
I would like to suggest to him two ways in which he might find a means of doing so within the law. It seems to me that


the last words of Section 7(2) of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, give him power to decide the date from which repayments to an industry or firm should be made. The power to do this depends on whether the Minister considers that it would be equitable in the circumstances. Is not this a case where equity requires that a retrospective repayment should be made?
There is apparently a second power. I refer to the memorandum issued by the Ministry to explain this Order, which says that in connection with slaughterhouses, in respect of which a mistake was made in 1968, the position has been rectified by making payments to employers concerned under extra statutory authority from the Treasury. What is this extra-statutory authority, and, if it is to be applied to slaughterhouses, will it be applied to the other industries affected?
I ask the Minister to clarify one or two points about the wording of the Order. The passages dealing with scrap metal and waste paper refer to the use of machinery, and make the use of machinery an essential part of the process if the concern is to qualify. I cannot understand why the use of machinery should be necessary. The Government are saying that for a process to qualify it must be a manufacturing process. The Minister will be aware that the word "manufacture" means literally to make by hand. It does not mean to make by machinery.

Mr. John Hynd: If the hon. Gentleman is not clear about why machinery is brought in, the trade certainly is. The main basis of its claim has been that machinery is involved.

Mr. Blaker: No doubt the hon. Member will elaborate that point if he gets the opportunity to speak. That is not my information and I have had very recent contacts with the industry—indeed, this week—which indicate the opposite point of view.
Whether the hon. Gentleman is correct or not—and I do not accept that he is—it is right that the Minister should explain why the use of machinery is necessary for a firm to qualify. Man is the cleverest machine available. The reason parts of the industry still rely on man is that machines which are clever

enough to rival man have not yet been invented. Therefore, this is totally illogical. I suppose that there is some other reason why the Government insist on the use of machinery for qualification purposes. The introduction of machinery is the wrong test. The test should be whether the material is altered to a recognised trade specification. That should satisfy the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd).
This point is of some general importance because I understand that the reason these parts of the reclamation industry are in the Order and others are not is that the Government believe that machinery is an important part of the process in connection with scrap metal and waste paper, but not in other sections of the reclamation industry. I cannot now go into whether it is in fact important in those other parts of the industry, but it would be useful if the Minister would explain why the use of machinery is made essential in these cases.
Secondly, what sort of machinery will qualify? Will only the complicated machinery qualify—and some of it these days is very complicated and expensive—or does "machinery" include hand tools, like hand shears, spanners, cold chisels and elementary tools of that kind, which must still be used in the process of scrap reclamation?
What personnel employed by the scrap metal reclamation industry will be in qualifying employment? Does it include those who work the machinery, or does it include, for example, lorry drivers who have a rôle to play in selecting and segregating the material and feeding it into the machines?
Next, film production. Will the Minister confirm that film production activities by British companies on location, whether at home or abroad, will qualify and not only activities in the studio?
I was glad to hear the Minister say that the recording of video-tape programmes for television purposes will qualify. I understood him to say that the 1968 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification would contain an amendment to make that clear. Is that so? Could he refer to the amendment? Is it not rather a case of recording of


video-tape programmes being still classified as a service activity, but the Government saying that for the purposes of the S.E.T. it will, nevertheless, be eligible for refund?
Last, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all employees in any slaughterhouse employed in killing or in the dressing of carcases will be treated as engaged in manufacturing, except in what would be the very unlikely case of their being employed in a larger complex which, because of the balance of numbers qualifying and not qualifying, would not itself count as a qualifying establishment?
We welcome the Order, but we fear that it will itself create further anomalies. No doubt, there will be another Order soon to clear them up. The Parliamentary Secretary may well argue that, if one has a tax of this kind, one must draw the line somewhere. But there is an alternative course. When a tax causes so much harm and injustice and produces as little success as this one has in the case of the industries now being relieved under the Order, the commonsense course would be to abolish the tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss that now. The hon. Gentleman got it in in the last sentence, but it was quite out of order.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Naturally, one welcomes the long overdue extension of selective employment payments to certain industries, and this relief, such as it is, and arbitrary though the selection be, is particularly welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has worked for three years on behalf of all the reclamation trades and the waste industry, some sections of which are to receive relief under the Order.
I join in hoping that the Minister will tonight try to explain the extraordinary procedure by which these industries were selected. In particular, when he spoke just now of processing, are we to take him to mean industries which change the nature of the materials with which they deal so that those materials are suitable for manufacturing purposes? That is what processing means to me, and I hope that we shall be told that that is what it means to the Minister.
As for the rest, one can only congratulate these arbitrarily chosen sections of the waste trades on their luck—for that is all it is—in coming out of the draw on the right side. At least, the Order gives encouragement to other equally important sections of the waste industry, notably woollen rags and cotton waste, which have not been lucky on this occasion, to think that they may come out top of the draw in a future lucky dip.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I regret that, while I was snatching a bite to eat between debates, I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he introduced the Order. I am sure that his remarks were as cogent as they were brief.
I congratulate my hon. Friend upon the changes that he has made, particularly upon the removal of
the production of cinematograph films for public exhibition
from the impost which it has suffered during the whole of the operation of the Act and the Order stemming from it.
I want to express a few words of regret at the manner in which the Opposition Front Bench has approached this question. If every time the Government refine this Measure, which admittedly was introduced in a very rough and ready fashion, if on every occasion when the Government say, "We have decided to improve and refine and make the selective employment tax proposals more selective", the Opposition say, "Why did you not do this before?", it will have the effect of discouraging my hon. Friends from improving the Act rather than of encouraging them. I want my hon. Friends to make the selective employment tax much more effective and introduce some further things in a future Order which are not contained in this Order.
On the other hand, I believe that there was some point in what the House may have thought was the somewhat pedantic distinction which was drawn between "hand-made" and "machine-made". Perhaps my hon. Friend's mind has been moving a little in this direction. The secondary means of performance—films for television—is exempted by this Order, whereas the original means of


performance—the theatre itself—still must endure the burden. This is totally indefensible.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that there is some equally pedantic reason for keeping the theatre in. Although it may be pedantic to argue that "manufacture" means hand-work—it does not mean that any more in common parlance—it would be equally pedantic to say that manufacturing takes place only provided a great deal of machinery is used in the process. It could be cogently argued that it is truer to say that a play is made afresh every night than it is to say that a film is made afresh every night.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker must be pedantic and keep the hon. Gentleman to the Order.

Mr. Jenkins: I fully recognise the correctness of your guidance, Sir, and accept it. Therefore, I will not pursue the point except to say that I hope my hon. Friend will find some way within the rules of order of giving some reassurance on this point.
It would indeed be unfortunate if the question of who is to be relieved of a burden were to depend upon who was the most efficient in presenting his argument, who brought the most pressure to bear on the Government in the finest way, who used the best P.R.O.s. I suggest that the reason why the film business is getting away with it—good luck to it; it entirely deserves to be relieved of this burden—is that it has marshalled and presented its case in a better fashion than other organisations—I have instanced the theatre—which have not placed their arguments before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although their arguments may be much more powerful than those that have been presented to him.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I must thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the step that he has taken. I have frequently raised the case of the scrap metal industry with him. Unlike the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) I have no need to try to read a brief which will show some kind of carping, grudging acceptance of this progress. I fully understand that, while there may have been considerable

delay in reaching this decision when S.E.T. was introduced, it was made clear that, while the Standard Industrial Classification was to be the basis at the beginning, representations and other considerations would be closely examined by the Government and modifications made when they were found to be necessary and justified.
There is a very wide range of activity in the scrap metal business, from the "Steptoe" type of firm to the vast kind of organisation, which can be found in my constituency, with complex and heavy machinery involved. It is not surprising that close examination of the various activities in the industry should be necessary before reaching a final decision. On behalf of the firms in my constituency which have made representations, I should like to express our appreciation of the progress that has been made and wish the Minister god-speed in any further modifications he may find it possible to make.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) asked me a number of questions, but before turning to them may I try to deal with what the hon. Gentleman said was the basis for the necessity of this Order, and that is the shortcomings of the Standard Industrial Classification as an instrument on which our classifications are based. As I said at the beginning of the debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) need hardly apologise for missing it; I very nearly missed it myself—the Government have always said, and tried to make it clear, that since the S.I.C. was initially intended for some other purpose, it would be necessary for us, from time to time, to alter the classification categories which entitled a firm to refund, or did not do so. That is a sensible and sophisticated way to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman will also understand when I say that to make the adjustment and remove the anomalies which are bound to arise, and which we have always agreed were bound to arise, is by its nature a process which takes time, not simply because the Government have to listen to representations and judge, according to their own criteria, the weight of the evidence, but because, almost invariably, representations are preceded by


the normal legal processes which can be undergone by companies or individuals who believe that they are not receiving repayments to which they are entitled. I mean initially the appeal to the industrial tribunal.
This has happened with the waste trades. They did more than apply to the Government for reconsideration and re-classification; they applied to industrial tribunals which ruled—as we would have expected them to rule—with two exceptions that the distribution heading was the right classification for the waste trades. While it was anticipated that a company which believed it was paying tax wrongly should go through this process, it has taken rather more than two years from the inception of the tax until this evening. That is the normal process of the correction of anomalies.
I concede—if not happily, then willingly—that the slaughterhouse adjustment we seek to make reflects an error. It was an error which the hon. Gentleman, in a sense, compounded when he said that the Government ought to understand the practices in slaughterhouses. One of the facets of the Government's error was that we understood those practices, but forgot that sometimes the practice of slaughtering took place outside slaughterhouses. I concede that the Order presented to the House a year ago was less complete than it might have been had it included two categories of slaughtering. That is why we asked for and obtained extrastatutory authority for paying the two categories of slaughtermen, but it was our intention and that of the House to include in that Order the three included for reasons of technical error. That is the area where extrastatutory authority for repayment is appropriate, but it is that area and that area alone.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the prospects of the retrospective payment. One reason which prevents the Government from making retrospective payment is that it is beyond our power to do so. Section 7(2), to which he refers, cannot be used to create a retrospective title to refund. The object of that section is to make sure that in certain circumstances individuals who make a claim for refund out of time, and who were at all times entitled under the heading to refund, may receive that retrospectively. However,

that does not empower the Government to reclassify an industry retrospectively, and, therefore, the issue of retrospective payments does not arise.
The hon. Gentleman asked me several detailed questions, but preceded them with the most general question of all, the definition of "manufacture" and asked whether the use of complex and expensive machinery, or any machinery, was the essential criterion. In this matter, as in so many matters connected with the English language, we deceive ourselves if we rely on the classical roots. The word has come to mean a great deal more than it originally meant.
I said in my opening speech that one of the criteria was the changes that are made in the material—changes in shape, in size, in composition—and for my part I regard the use of machinery as in part, but not entirely, indicative of those changes. Much of our application of this criterion is based on the judgments of industrial tribunals which, by and large, have regarded the use of machinery as indicative of manufacturing process but as one of the criteria. Certainly it is a criterion on which we lean heavily, although there are other criteria, and it is a principle which, I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright), must follow a change in the nature of the material.
When I had to make a judgment on whether slaughtering was or was not a manufacturing process, basing my views on the criterion in the change in the nature of material I took perhaps too fundamental a view, that the change between life and death constituted a fundamental change in the nature of material, and, therefore, I regard that as a manufacturing process.

Mr. Blaker: I also share the view which the hon. Gentleman has just propounded, and I said so in my speech. My point was this. Is not that test sufficient without introducing machinery which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is indicative only of manufacture? I will go with him on that, but it is not essential to manufacture.

Mr. Hattersley: Machinery being indicative, it is important not to rely on one simple criterion when making what is essentially a complex and difficult


judgment about the two categories. There are issues in which the simple change ought to be regarded as the criterion for manufacting but that is not a judgment which one would want to take in all its simplicity without also having some supporting evidence.
The three specific questions which the hon. Gentleman asked me concerned video-tape recording, slaughtermen and all kinds of film-making. I will answer all three questions directly. Video-tape recording appears in the new Standard Industrial Classification as a refund category. As a result of the assistance provided for me by that most sophisticated machinery, man, in the form of a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I can quote the heading, which is MLH 365. Slaughtermen of all kinds engaged on all forms of animal killing and all forms of animal dressing will be eligible for refund.
If film makers are operating for British-based firms but working outside Great Britain, and if they are within the normal taxation categories common to all individuals working outside Great Britain, they will be eligible for the payment of tax and refund in the way in which they would be if they were working in Great Britain.
It is a matter of some pleasure to ask the House to approve the Order, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Selective Employment Payments Variation Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NURSES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60A (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NURSES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Nurses Act, 1957 and the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to members of area or regional nurse-training committees or sub-committees of such committee that may arise from any provision enabling any such sums determined by the Secretary of State to be paid otherwise than in pursuance of an order made by him.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Orders of the Day — MEDICAL BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60A (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — JUNIOR SCHOOLS (ATTERCLIFFE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest Armstrong.]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I apologise to the Minister of State for causing her the inconvenience of having to be present tonight to answer this debate, but at least my constituents will recognise that it is a further sign of the democratic basis of our Parliamentary procedure.
The situation to which I wish to refer is not untypical. I refer to a school in my constituency, which is the cause for some concern throughout the area and to the city council, namely, the Gleadless county junior school, built in 1894, when the population was some 3,000. The population has now risen to 28,000.
The original building contained six classes in the main building, which have been added to by six temporary hutments, the life of which was supposed to have been five years. Two of these additions were built in 1944 and still serve as classrooms. In the interim period since 1894 the playground, which was meant to cater for the children of a population of 3,000 has since been halved to provide accommodation for school meals, prayers, and other assemblies, and for the children of a population now numbering 28,000.
Imagine the serious situation in the classes. I know that many other schools have classes with over 35 or 40 children. At Gleadless school there are 15 classes, nine with over 40 pupils and two with 46 pupils each. The school at present caters for 623 children, which, in September of this year, will rise to 662, giving an average of 44 per class—if the school can accommodate them. But the fact is that it will not be able to accommodate them, and, in fact, has not been able to accommodate the normal flow of children for the area. This year, 22 children had to be excluded, and last year the number of children excluded was 52. The school is expecting an influx of 100 in September, of which 50 will not be accommodated.
The anomaly of the situation, which makes it more difficult for parents to

accept it, is that opposite the school is a piece of land belonging to the local education authority which has been acquired for building a new middle school to relieve the pressure on the old school in Gleadless. But this project, like other projects, has been held up by the Department of Education and Science on the ground of the need to restrict expenditure.
Because of its very progressive policy in education—the building and development of comprehensive schools in the area, for which it has an outstanding record—the local authority has exhausted the capital allocations fixed by the Minister. These are already fully committed. Therefore, there is no possibility of building any extension to the school out of any capital expenditure at the moment.
There have, naturally, been considerable protests. A number of meetings have been held by the parents. With the local education officer, the head of the school and representatives of the city council I have attended two very crowded meetings.
The city council is very concerned about the situation. I gather that within recent days almost, the city council has been able to find ways and means of producing sufficient revenue to rent a couple of mobile classrooms, which should be available in September, to relieve the position. However, this will not meet the long-term or even the middle-term situation.
I understand that the education administrative officer has been to London within the last week and met officials of the Department. I gather that the Department has apparently now agreed, according to the local authority representative,
to place the project for the new middle school on the 1969–70 preliminary list.
Will the Minister explain what this means?
In a letter of 11th June to one of the parents leading the protest, the Department states:
Because of the expected increase in the population in the next few years"—
it certainly recognises that—
there is a likelihood that the new middle school will be included on the list of projects


which the authority will be able to start in the financial year 1971–72.
How this relates to the preliminary list for 1969–70 I am not very clear. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
I hope, also, that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell me whether, in either of these statements, there is any firm commitment that this middle school development will go ahead within the foreseeable future, because we cannot overlook the fact that there have been previous postponements of this project. Naturally, there is considerable nervousness among those directly concerned that there might again be postponements for one reason or another, even if the project goes on this preliminary list or is in the list of projects for 1971–72.
I do not raise this matter in any form of carping criticism of the Government or their policy. I fully recognise their present financial difficulties and the elephantine demands of education throughout the country. I have explained this in full to the meetings of parents which I have attended to try to get the picture at least in balance.
I pay tribute to the Government's general record in education: the number of new schools which have been built, the number of teachers under training, and the general progress which has been made over the last two or three years. Indeed, at the last meeting of parents protesting about this issue which I attended, which was also attended by one or two Conservative councillors, I mentioned that the Government now have a record, for the first time in our history, of spending more on education than on defence. It may be no surprise that the two Conservative councillors present at the meeting immediately interjected loud cries of "Shame!" when I made this announcement. That merely illustrates the difference in approach to the priorities of these matters.
Therefore, I am not criticising the general policy or approach of the Government. And I am certainly not criticising the local authority, because in Sheffield there is a wonderful display of new modern schools. Progress with comprehensive school building is probably as good, if not better, than in any other city in the country. Must all this be at the

expense of such pockets of frustration as one finds in some of our big cities, as illustrated by the case of Gleadless and others which could be quoted in Sheffield?
The problem of junior schools cannot be ignored. However important the development of secondary and comprehensive schools, they must march in line with them. There are financial problems, but if one is considering the financial aspect one must recognise that the primary education of our young children is the soundest investment that this country can make in times of prosperity or otherwise. One must also recognise the justified anxieties of the parents.
There has been some talk about the possibility of transferring a number of the children coming forward for the next term to Frecheville, a school within two or three miles of this one, which would mean children having to cross a very busy main trunk road, but I gather that this idea has now been dropped, or is likely to be dropped, because Frecheville and all the other schools within the area are either full or will be full next term.
I trust that that will not be necessary. I hope that the two mobile classrooms will be forthcoming by September—that will hold the position—but that the Minister will not accept that as an excuse for delaying whatever urgent action is possible, within the present limitations, to set about building the extension school for which the land is available, and for which the Government are apparently prepared to give authority within the next two years. I hope that it will be sooner.
I hope, too, that from this short debate we can have some reassurance that I can give my constituents.

10.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) for the moderate way in which he has presented his case, and also for letting me know in advance fully the points that he wished to raise. I know of the natural concern which is felt by the parents about this school which is housed in an old building and where the number of pupils is increasing.


But before dealing with this particular school it may be helpful if I say a few words about the school building programme and the method of allocating resources.
The school building programme for this year is £138½ million, which compares with £85 million in 1964. Next year it will be more than £160 million, which will include £25 million for raising the school-leaving age, and this will be the highest-ever expenditure on school building. In 1968–69 Sheffield was allocated £825,609 for starts in school building, and in 1969–70, this year, it was allocated nearly £712,000, so I think that Sheffield has had a fair share of the building programme.
Even though we are spending that amount of money on school building, every year sees an increase in the school population, and extra places have to be found. One of our chief difficulties about school building is that the population of this country is not remaining still. It is moving. Populations are moving to new housing estates, or even to new towns, and this means that we have to give the first priority to those areas where there would otherwise be no school at all.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend when he says that in the older part of Sheffield there are the old schools, because, as he knows, I sit for a part of the neighbouring City of Leeds, and I have the same problem in my constituency. The Leeds City Council—as, I am sure, the Sheffield City Council—has had to provide most of the new schools in the city for the new housing estates where huge new populations have grown up, so the older parts of the city have had to be content with the older schools.
I know that there are many substandard schools in the country which ought to have been dealt with years ago, and I am sorry that these have had to take second place in the queue. However, the Government allocated £16 million to be spent in 1968–69 and 1969–70 for replacing old schools in deprived areas. Sheffield benefited from this, and received a special allocation of over £517,000.
With regard to Gleadless school, in assessing the need for additional places

which can arise either because of the effect of new housing or because of the increase in numbers of children coming from existing houses, we have to look at the places available not only in the existing school catchment area but also at other schools within reasonable distance. If there are accessible vacant places, we must take account of them even though using them might involve some inconvenience. Otherwise, there would be an unnecessary duplication of places, and this would be an unjustifiable use of scarce building resources at a time when there is a serious backlog of really unsatisfactory old school buildings to be improved and replaced; a number of them in Sheffield.
On one or two occasions in the past we have considered proposals put forward by the Sheffield local education authority for an additional school in the Gleadless area. It has been clear—and I am talking now about the past—that taking into account the effect of some new housing developments numbers in the school were increasing, and would continue to grow, although fairly slowly compared with some situations elsewhere. But we also found that there was a substantial number of vacancies at the school which my hon. Friend has mentioned—the primary school of Frecheville—which is between a mile and a mile and a half away, and which is no further away from the Gleadless school than some children are having to travel to the Gleadless school now.
Looking at this wider area, the case for the new school was less strong, and in view of the many urgent claims, including some for replacement of really old school buildings in Sheffield itself, we decided to defer the new school for Gleadless until the need was established over a wider area. Therefore, this school was not in the recently announced list of major building on which we have agreed that design work can start with a view to beginning building work in the year 1970–71.
I can well understand my hon. Friend's being a little confused about the preliminary list, the design list and the starts list, because we have just adopted in my Department a new procedure for allocating school building. In the past, an announcement has been made of the buildings which could start in the next year, but this has in many instances been


so late in being announced that the local authorities have not been able to start the schools that they were allocated in that particular year. So there grew up a backlog of schools which had been allocated in previous years but had not been started. This meant that perhaps other schools of other local authorities were being held back because some authorities had been allocated schools which they could not start.
Now we are putting an end to that position. We decided on a new procedure whereby we do it on a three-year basis. In the first year, we announce the preliminary list of schools that may be considered in the next two years. Then, in the next year, we announce the design list, so that the local authority can get ahead with the plans and design.
Then we announce the starts list and the local authority are then in a position to start any time after 1st April of that year. They must start this school within the year in which it is put on the starts list. This is in order that we can have some control over what is happening in local authorities. The starts list and the design list for this year have already been announced.
The situation in the Gleadless School area is expected to build up and information that has been more recently supplied by the local education authority in support of a new claim to start building work in 1971–72 confirms that numbers in both areas are slowly increasing and that the vacant places in the Frecheville school will all be required before very long for children from its own catchment area. As far as I understand it, this will not be in the next term, but in the next year or two.
At present I can only say—and I give a pledge on this—that in the light of this situation we will consider as sympathetically as possible whether the new school for the Gleadless area can be included in the preliminary list to be announced shortly, for schools expected to start in April, 1971.
I realise that this will seem a long way ahead to parents in the area concerned about facilities for their children. I hope, however, that they will be able to appreciate the wider situation and understand that the delay in providing the new school for Gleadless is not due to any lack of understanding of their feelings or problems, but because we have a limited, although substantial, amount of resources available for the major building programme which we must deploy in the best way possible.
It would obviously be unfair to those with urgent problems elsewhere to provide a new school for Gleadless area before the justification for anything like the scale of provision proposed exists.
In the meantime, I know that the local education authority will do all it can to make things as satisfactory as possible for the existing Gleadless school. Local education authorities, like the Department, are limited by the resources at their disposal, but I understand that the Sheffield authority has decided to hire a double mobile classroom unit which will be put on the site of the existing Gleadless school and which will help to relieve accommodation problems until a new school can be built.
These mobile classrooms are not anything like the huts which my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe has described. I have seen a great many of them in the country, and most of them are better in building and equipment than some of the older schools. They are very good indeed.
The Sheffield authority is providing this unit; the starts and design lists have already been announced. I am now considering the preliminary list which would mean a start from 1st April, 1971. This list will be announced for the whole country shortly and I will undertake that I will consider this school as sympathetically as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.